All Posts Tagged With: "Daniel Montalvo"

Bristling with Kudos

This is a response from Marty Rathbun on his blog October 8, 2010 to a post by Larry Brennan:

martyrathbun09 | October 8, 2010 at 2:09 pm | Reply

    Larry, You and I talked in depth some months ago. Perhaps you will recall we predicted this very day when Miscavige would out of sheer arrogance and hate drive a lot of folk previously bickering at one another together to face the storm. Thank you for all you have done and are doing. Yeah, of course I remember Special Unit. You may remember that Miscavige would pull you and Shervell (Invest Special Unit) over to ASI to give minute by minute orders on Armstrong. Believe it or not, I was out of the loop for all the fireworks that lead to the suit. That is why I have bristled at Armstrong’s condemnation of me for acts I knew not of. Of course, the ball was in my court when it went to court. But, ain’t it funny how what gets around, comes around? The Armstrong precedent will protect this kid. And for that, after all these years, kudos to Gerry Armstrong. That’s right, I said it.

tldr: Some people are treating Marty’s recent comment about me on his blog as a friendly gesture, his issuing kudos to me because the appellate decision in the first Scientology v. Armstrong case (Armstrong I) will, he declares, protect Daniel Montalvo. Marty also provides his reason for what he calls bristling at me, which would be his actions and words in relation to me since his bristling began.

To bristle is “to react in an angry or offended manner.”   Bristling would be an identifiable indicator of a being at 1.5 on Scientologists’ tone scale. If the bristling is hidden from others, this indicates 1.1 on Scientologists’ tone scale. Clearly many people, particularly those most closely allied to him, have been missing Marty’s long term bristling and his failure to move on up from there. Covert hostility is in fact the Scientology-wide tone in reaction to SPs like me.

Marty’s kudos may very well be poisoned, and his justification for all that bristling, which hasn’t ended with his comment, is not borne out by the evidence I’ve been able to examine in order to determine what he was talking about. /tldr

Marty’s comment about me appears as a set of non-sequiturs. It feels like a manufactured opportunity to present a newly evaluated or dreamed up position or justification for why, over these past several months that he’s been communicating publicly, he has acted so abysmally toward me; or, as he said, why he’s been bristling. Further, this new justification for the bristling appears to mean nothing to Marty, except to move on to his pronouncement, also a non sequitur, that “the Armstrong precedent will protect this kid.”

The Armstrong precedent is Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917. This decision affirmed the 1984 judgment in Armstrong I, Los Angeles Superior Court No. C 420153.

Larry Brennan, to whom Marty was responding, hadn’t said anything about me or the first Scientology v. Armstrong case, or why Marty had been doing all that bristling.

My first communication to Marty, after he began communicating publicly about his Sea Org experiences and knowledge, was my letter of May 31, 2009. I have to assume, to make sense of Marty’s justification for his bristling, that May 31, 2009 would be the earliest beginning for his bristling.

Importantly, Marty says that his bristling was caused by my condemnation of him for acts he knew not of; and that he knew not of whatever I was condemning him of, because during that period leading up to the suit he was out of the loop, at least for all the fireworks.

I do not know what fireworks Marty knows about from that period, but I certainly want him to tell me all he knows about the fireworks he knows about that I don’t know about. When he entered the loop by August 2, 1982, and became responsible, under Hubbard, for what was happening with me including any fireworks, Marty had to have studied all the reports, including the fireworks reports, from before that date. He would therefore still have knowledge of, and valid testimony concerning, the fireworks, and, of course, all sorts of fair game from his out-of-the-loop period, even if he had been, as he claims, out of it.

In any case, the period when Marty says he was out of the loop for all the fireworks that lead to the suit — again it has to be Armstrong I he’s talking about — was between December 12, 1981, when I left the SO and Scientology, and August 2, 1982, when Scientology filed the suit.

It’s clear that Marty hasn’t identified any claimed condemnation of him by me for acts he knew not of. I believe that an examination of what I have written to Marty will establish that no such condemnation exists. I believe Marty knows this, and knows that this justification for his bristling is as false as the earlier justifications or reasons he has communicated.

I am not asking Marty to help me with anything he knows not of, just what he knows of.

My first letter sent to Marty dated May 31, 2009, established certain important positions and understandings for the subsequent communications, for our present relationship, and really for my relationship with all Scientologists. It deals with Marty’s statements in a significant declaration he executed August 13, 1991, which was filed for the purpose of invalidating the appellate decision that he now calls the Armstrong precedent, which the Court of Appeal published July 29, 1991. This is nine years after Marty was out of the loop.

The earliest relevant incident I mentioned in my May 31, 2009 letter to Marty is the 1984 LA Superior Court trial. I also mentioned the Armstrong videotape operation, which started during the trial, and which involved Loyalist operators Dan Sherman, Mike Rinder, Dave Kluge, Gene Ingram, etc. And I mentioned Scientology agents’ theft of my original manuscript, artwork and other materials from my car which was part of the Armstrong operation. But these events were two years after Scientology went to court with Armstrong I, and Marty entered the loop.

A bit further in the May 31, 2009 letter I mentioned Ken Hoden’s false testimony against Keith Henson, which was in the late 1990’s, and said I was sure Marty was aware of it. And I definitely did accuse Marty in the May 31 letter of embracing and participating in questionable activities, as Hubbard used the term in HCOB 8 February 1960“Honest People Have Rights, Too.” I’m sure I also claimed somewhere that Marty, like Hubbard and Miscavige, covered his questionable activities with claims of honesty, ethics, freedom and rights.

Although I didn’t condemn him for it, I did state in my May 31, 2009 letter that Marty had been trying to stop and punish my unmasking of Hubbard’s and Scientology’s dishonesty. I did say, essentially, that in 1991 he had been condemning himself to becoming an enemy of his own freedom and condemning himself to more years in the SO, as Scientology scripture warns. But I didn’t condemn Marty to that condition, and in fact encouraged him to take the straight, honest, ethical path that leads away from that self-condemnation, and could have saved him fifteen or so more years in an organization about which he now so caustically complains.

I did write in my May 31, 2009 letter that Marty could not but have known that Hubbard’s assertion in Scientology scripture that he had never lied to or conned Scientologists was a willful lie, and I’m sure that Marty still knows that Hubbard was lying. I also did acknowledge that Marty was involved in the Armstrong I suit when Hubbard wrote HCOB January 31, 1983 “The Reason for Orgs,” but this was five months after the end of Marty’s out-of-the loop period.

I definitely identified Marty as a beneficiary in the Scientology v. Armstrong contract, and in the efforts, including the present injunction, to enforce the contract. But the contract was not concocted, or at least presented for signing, until December 1986, four years and four months after his out-of-loop period.

I did acknowledge in my May 31, 2009 letter that, as Inspector General for Ethics, Marty was responsible for the ethics of every Scientology beneficiary in these evils, but, again, this only started and was therefore true only four years and four months after he was no longer out of the loop.

In the same May 31, 2009 letter, I do identify Marty as having relevant evidence concerning several of the attacks on me identified on the “Scientology’s Black Propaganda and Black Ops” section of my web site. I stand by that statement which is still true.

There are reports or other items from the December 12, 1981 to August 2, 1982 period that are listed on that site section.

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 02-22-1982
[PAC: Pacific area]
[ GLA: Greater Los Angeles]

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report [undated] 1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 02-24-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 02-25-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-04-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-05-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-08-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-10-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-10-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-11-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-12-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-15-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-16-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-17-1982

Assistant Guardian Intelligence GLA Daily Report to PAC Mgmt Chief 03-18-1982

The “Gerry Armstrong Project” is dated 17 February 1982, when Marty says he was out of the loop, and presumably not responsible.

I really don’t believe, however, that I have ever condemned Marty for doing any of those things that were done between December 12, 1981 and August 2, 1982. Obviously this is a serious enough matter to Marty for him to bring it up and blame it for causing his last sixteen months of bristling; so he shouldn’t mind identifying these condemnations that caused his long term reaction, if only to have the opportunity to rub my nose in them.

Within days of Marty getting the ball in his court when Armstrong I was filed, i.e., August 2, 1982, I took some photos of PIs under his direction. This crew assaulted me, ran a car into me, terrorized my wife and me on the highway, scared our neighbors, scared our friends, scared us, and bullied us around the clock. The Armstrong precedent stated:

Following commencement of the instant action, Armstrong was pushed or shoved by one of the Church’s investigators. In a later incident his elbow was struck by an investigator’s vehicle; still later, the same investigator pulled in front of Armstrong on a freeway and slammed on his brakes. This investigator’s vehicle also crossed a lane line as if to push Armstrong off the road. Plaintiffs’ position is that the investigators were hired solely for the purpose of regaining the documents taken by Armstrong.

My final few paragraphs in my May 31, 2009 letter state my position with Marty quite clearly, and concerned principally the Scientology-wide effort to stop me and people who associate with me or act in concert with me from speaking freely, and in so many other ways suppressing our basic human rights. Marty became a contracted beneficiary, of course, in the campaign to suppress human rights of Scientology’s targets on a mass basis, when this contract was concocted and executed, which was when he was running litigation for Miscavige, and years after he says he stopped being out of the loop.

My next letter to Marty dated July 7, 2009 concerned only his knowledge of the theft of my manuscript, artwork and other materials which was November 8, 1984, two years and three months after his out-of-the-loop period was over.

On July 12, 2009, I wrote a letter in response to a poster calling himself Sitting Bull that Marty later identified as himself.   Although I had suspected that Marty was Sitting Bull, I did not address Sitting Bull as Marty, and in any case did not mention anything that occurred between December 12, 1981 and August 2, 1982, the essential out-of-loop time.

On August 14, 2009, I wrote a letter to Marty that concerned only his participation in the black PR on me in the submissions he, Miscavige, et al. made to the IRS to get Scientology’s tax exemption.

The submissions were in or about 1992, ten years after Marty stopped being out of the loop he’d been out of. My letter contains no mention of events between December 12, 1981 and August 2, 1982.

On August 18, 2009, I wrote Marty asking him to help me correct and end the black PR on me that for many years he had helped generate and disseminate, specifically the black PR he had submitted to the IRS.   This letter too contains no mention of events between December 12, 1981 and August 2, 1982.

On September 4, 2009, I wrote Marty to assure him I didn’t want an apology, and only wanted his help in resolving ongoing black PR, ongoing injustices, ongoing human rights violations, and the ongoing effects of other crimes, in which he had been involved. There is no mention in my letter of events that occurred between December 12, 1981 and August 2, 1982.

On September 6, 2009, I wrote to Marty concerning a comment he’d made about me on his blog on August 20, 2009, essentially that he didn’t answer my communications up to that time because he couldn’t understand them. His not answering my communications, conscionably that is, has been a vital part of what he called his bristling. His justification for this part at least of his bristling was his claimed inability to understand what I was communicating. This is different, obviously, from his latest justification for his bristling, which he’s saying is my condemnation of him for acts he knew not of during the period of December 12, 1981 to August 2, 1982. I explained in my September 6, 2009 letter in an easily understandable manner that my communications were easily understandable.

I still believe that Marty has the necessary intelligence to understand my communications without extraordinary cognitive effort. Clearly too, his excuse, for any of his months of bristling, that he couldn’t understand what I communicated, is lame beyond shame. For that reason alone, I can see why Marty might want, after all this time, to come up with a new justification for his bristling. Now he apparently does acknowledge that he understands my communications well enough, and with his understanding has identified the cause of his bristling as what he says are my condemnations of him for what he knew not of during his out-of-loop period.

On September 6, 2009, Marty e-mailed me back, essentially to list what he called critical differences between us, which at that time he was using to justify his refusal to help me with the help I had been requesting. Marty’s refusal to help is, of course, the most meaningful characteristic of his reaction to my communications, which he calls his bristling. His justifications amount to:

  1. that I was willing to lie and did, and Marty’s not willing to lie;
  2. that I decided to become a victim, and relish it so much I’ve continued to be one to that day, September 6, 2009;
  3. that everything I utter is through the prism of a victim;
  4. that to the degree that what I utter is refracted as such, it is false;
  5. that Marty is devoted to helping people from entering the dark, dank dungeon of victim-hood;
  6. that I sold out   twenty-three years ago and am apparently still mad at myself for the indelible taint it left;
  7. that Marty will never sell out.

Marty’s justifications for his bristling that he lists in his September 6, 2009 letter do not include his latest justification that his bristling was caused by my condemnation of him for acts he knew not of during the December 12, 1981 to August 2, 1982 period when he says he was out of the loop, at least for all the alleged fireworks. I evaluate these justifications for Marty’s bristling as just as spurious as his justification for bristling that my communications, which really consisted of requests to help correct injustices, were beyond his understanding.

He ends his September 6, 2009 e-mail with what he says I would have to do for him to help me. I would have to make a genuine reach, which obviously Marty was going to judge as to its genuineness or reachingness, to reverse a downward spiral he postulated for me that he said his justifications — 1 to 7 above — had set me on. Marty’s seven justifications contain bald faced and, if really understood, sadistic lies. Marty lied about himself being unwilling to lie, when he had lied and still lies like a used car salesman. He lied for Hubbard, for Miscavige, for Scientology, undoubtedly for others, and now, whatever lies he’s lying, he implies, are for himself.

To sell out, as Marty uses the idiom, is to betray one’s professed cause, creed, principles or standards , or perhaps betray former allies or supporters. It doesn’t really matter what’s the sell-out’s price or cost. Marty lied about himself never selling out, when he had sold out every day of his Sea Org career, and is still selling out. Having proclaimed himself in charge of ethics for the sworn-to most ethical organization on earth, he sold out and continues to sell out in his daily words and actions to get Scientology accepted.   The Scientology acceptance program and any successful acceptance are so wrong they betray causes, creeds, principles, standards and every human being.

Marty’s postulate that everything I utter is through the prism of a victim is seemingly meaningless, but it is actually meaningful psychically violent and sadistic black PR. Marty then postulates another seeming meaninglessness, that to the degree that what I utter is refracted as such, it is false. Having postulated everything I utter being through the prism of a victim, whom Marty has already postulated as universally despicable or degraded, he postulates the degree of refraction at one hundred percent, proving, by postulate, that everything I utter, and have uttered obviously, is false. As deranged as this sounds, it actually works for Marty because he’s never acknowledged that anything I’ve ever said is true. Same for Scientologists in Miscavige’s faction; if any of them merely granted me credence, even by simply acknowledging that what I’ve said was true, these Scientologists would be targeted for organized bristling.

Marty postulated me as a full-time victim who relishes being a victim so much I’m still a victim after years of victim-hood; and then he postulates victim-hood’s condition or home as a dark, dank dungeon. Marty here is applying Hubbard’s beastification tech. Marty postulates onto me an indelible taint, apparently from a legal settlement with Scientology he postulates as “selling out.” He was intimately involved in the effort to get me to sell out, and if I did sell out it was what he wanted, what he lied and bullied to get, and what he insisted on. But I didn’t sell out, I gave Scientology, including Marty, the golden opportunity to change their antisocial ways. Regardless, whatever I did is no legitimate reason for Marty not to debrief to me and help me correct the injustices he helped perpetrate, nor a legitimate reason for his petulant bristling all these years.

I’m rejecting Marty’s kudos for the Armstrong precedent protecting Daniel Montalvo. I don’t accept that the Armstrong appellate decision will protect Montalvo, or even that it should be used by his attorney to try to protect him legally. The decision deserves Marty and every Scientologist’s kudos for what it really says and represents, and has been saying and representing for nineteen years, including the successful defense of the victims of the SP doctrine against Scientology’s predations, and the affirming of the LA Superior Court judgment in which Hubbard was revealed as a pathological liar, Scientology was declared his alter ego, and Fair Game was condemned.

Kudos are acclaim or praise for exceptional achievement. It is no achievement for the Armstrong appellate decision to protect Montalvo, if it doesn’t protect him. And if it doesn’t protect him, it would be wrong to use it for that purpose and fail. Scientology has been trying for twenty-six years, using all kinds of attorneys, connections, black PR and ops to invalidate the judgment in Armstrong I. Scientology has had to include the appellate decision in that campaign for the past nineteen years. Much of the campaign to discredit or extirpate the judgment and appellate decision has been to beastify and bristle at me personally, since I am the subject of these documents and rulings. Scientology is notorious for its “pan-determinism” in its legal affairs, its operation in both side of apparent controversies. Marty has been intimately involved in that campaign for years, and his pronouncement that the Armstrong precedent will protect Montalvo, may very well be in that campaign’s furtherance.

I invite everyone to read the judgment and the appellate opinion, links for which are provided above. I have not seen where Montalvo obtained evidence from Scientology to protect himself from the cult’s Fair Game, including legal attacks, which the judgment and opinion said justified my sending the subject documents to my attorney, or to report fraud or other criminality. In fact, that the hard drives Montalvo is alleged to have taken from Scientology premises were not viewed as protecting him from Fair Game or contain evidence of criminality, is evidenced by Marty’s instruction to Montalvo to return the drives to Scientology.

Marty’s bestowal of his kudos so begrudgingly — “That’s right, I said it.” — make what the kudos are for seem so important. His kudos could be seen as satisfying people who’ve been observing his behavior, his long term bristling at me, perhaps both his supporters who love his bristling, and those who don’t approve of his bristling. He makes it sound like he’s been in a hammerlock and bestowing kudos is saying uncle; but he’s saying uncle, even though he wants to keep bristling, for a worthy goal, protecting Montalvo. Understanding, however, that Marty’s kudos are for an illusion, plus signal a potential contrived assault on the Armstrong precedent, and on the Armstrong I judgment, his begrudgingness is understandable as covert bristling.

The reality is, not shockingly, that Marty is conferring no kudos whatsoever. The kudos are for the Armstrong precedent protecting Montalvo at some time in the future, perhaps after years of appeals. Again, I don’t accept that, from the facts I’ve seen — talking here only about the hard drive theft case — the Armstrong precedent protects Montalvo. The precedent and the judgment have protected other people, and even now could, if studied and sufficiently understood, protect many people from much Scientology evil, including what evil Marty’s doing. The precedent is one that Montalvo’s attorney must know about, and it could help in the case, depending on Montalvo and his attorney and other factors. But the precedent very well might not protect Montalvo in his defense of his theft case, which again could depend on his attorney’s connection to Scientology and other Scientologists, like Marty.

In any case, Marty’s kudos are for a future event, meaning that if the Armstrong precedent protects Montalvo, then kudos would become reality. If Montalvo is convicted or, I suppose, if any other harm befalls him, then the Armstrong precedent didn’t protect him, and no kudos would become reality. So Marty hasn’t actually conferred any kudos, because Montalvo hasn’t been protected yet. Marty giving up something with his future kudos for an exceptional future achievement, which is unlikely to be achieved, was just him posturing. I don’t even have to reject his kudos, because there aren’t any to reject. I therefore revoke any rejection I’ve made of anything I misunderstood to be kudos from Marty. And anyone else who was fooled into thinking that by granting future kudos Marty was doing something other than bristle can rescind their congratulations until his kudos get real.