The truth about costs

Re: Leah Remini is shooting a TV series about Scientology

#442

Little David

Gerry Armstrong wrote:

[…]

Remini did state that she wanted to help the Scientologists’ victims, and she lamented that she had no way. If Mike Rinder told the truth — not the scripted, generalized, post-truth truth12 that she facilitated – a lot of victims]would be helped. There is hardly any cost involved. It will bring about reconciliation. Because of her stated desire, she might use her celebrity megaphone and status to get him to do the right and honest thing.”

continues: http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/1941

1st January 2017, 04:29 AM #443

CommunicatorIC

The statement, “There is hardly any cost involved,” or variations thereof, continues to be repeated. As I’ve explained before, and as I will explain yet again, it is false.

If, as the premise of this argument appears to assume, Mike Rinder engaged in criminal and/or tortious conduct, and people want him to admit to same, for him to “tell the truth” would expose him to criminal and/or civil liability, thus causing harm not only to him but also to his wife and child. He would not be able to depend on any statutes of limitations because of the doctrines and law concerning, for example and without limitation, fraudulent concealment, delayed discovery, equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, tolling for the period the plaintiff is a minor, tolling for the period the defendant is out of state, different state and federal statutes of limitation, different statutes of limitations for different states, and different statutes of limitations (if any) in foreign countries.

I’ll also note that were Mike to do so, it would probably destroy his ability to speak out in the future. If as a result of “telling the truth” Mike was mired in criminal and/or civil litigation, no attorney would permit Mike to utter another public word about Scientology or his involvement therein.

Perhaps some believe Mike, and by unfortunate necessary extension his wife and child, should properly bear that risk. But please don’t pretend that there would be “hardly any cost involved.” To say that is, at best, ignorant. And now verging on willful ignorance.

IMHO, Mike and Leah are doing an enormous amount of public good. For some, apparently, that is not enough. Understood.

As I said before, I would advise Mike not to comply with these demands or requests. If I were in Mike’s shoes, I would not endanger the welfare of my wife and child in order to comply. I would do what Mike is doing now — if I had even that amount of courage.

Obviously CommunicatorIC’s (CIC’s) indignation at the ignorance projected onto me is as fake as the ignorance. Accepting, however, the way CIC paradigmatizes this cost matter, CIC can only know what I wrote is false if CIC knows that, in fact, Rinder, as CIC says, “engaged in criminal and/or tortious conduct,” which if known about, “would expose him to criminal and/or civil liability.”

If CIC does not know it as a fact that Rinder engaged in criminal and/or tortious conduct, which, if known about by persons other than CIC, would expose him to criminal and/or civil liability, then CIC cannot know that such liability exists.

If CIC cannot and does not know that such liability exists, then it is false to pronounce false what CIC pronounced false.

CIC can honestly say that “it might be false,” but it is false to say, “it is false.”

Accepting, however, that CIC does know that Rinder engaged in criminal and/or tortious conduct for which he would be criminally and/or civilly liable if anyone other than CIC ever found out about it, some serious ethical questions arise. This is especially so because CIC is such a significant promoter and defender of Rinder. And here CIC is presenting an argument, no matter how ridiculous, for him not telling the truth. In fact, no matter what CIC calls it, CIC advised him to not tell the truth. I already dealt with the same argument from apparently the same person in some detail.1

It is common among promoters and defenders of the Scientologist conspirators against person and rights to involve their families and to claim as CIC has that telling the truth would “endanger the welfare of,” their wives and children, “threaten,”  them, “endanger their futures,” etc. I don’t think I’ve seen where Rinder used his family as human shields exactly like that, but CIC is putting them in that position for him.

There is, and can be, no guaranteed harm or threat to Rinder’s family at all if he told the truth. There is guaranteed harm to the criminal conspiracy that Rinder still serves by not tell the truth about it. That is the harm CIC is really trying to prevent.

I cannot know if Rathbun or Rinder’s wives are fully aware of their husband’s participation in this criminal conspiracy. I can’t even know if they are participants themselves. If so, they would have the same interest in keeping the conspiracy working as their husbands do. But I also don’t know if Rathbun and Rinder’s wives might want them to tell the truth. Clearly there are undeniable benefits to their telling the truth, and it could be the best thing for the family, and even stunningly reduce any real or imagined threat.

There very well might be harm or threat from the conspiracy to his family if he ever broke with it and told the truth. That should be obvious because what he is part of and still protects is a criminal conspiracy. But the threat of criminal or civil liability from his victims is bogus.

And his continued service to the conspiracy that has victimized so many people should be spoken up about, even if falls to the victims he sought to destroy to do so.

The conspiracy operates both in human society, where it is criminal, and in the realm of religion and the field of thought, where it is devilish.

CIC’s argument that were Rinder to tell the truth it would probably destroy his ability to speak out in the future is, I think, the most sagacious argument I’ve seen for post-truth. Don’t tell the truth, because once you do you’ll never do it again. Keep lying, lest they shut you up. The cowardice to not do the right thing takes real courage.

As for CIC’s attorney argument, I’m sure it is not hard to find an attorney who will tell Rinder not to tell the truth. Supposedly Monique Yingling visited Rinder to keep him from telling the truth, and so far he appears to have fully complied. The Scientologists have been using their attorneys to launder their criminal conspiracy’s crimes and antisocial acts against their victims for decades. In fact, attorneys are active participants in the conspiracy. Sure, Rinder can hide behind a sleazy attorney’s sleazy attorney advice. But I know that kind of advice when I see it, and know it serves the Scientologists’ malevolent purposes here.

So far, I have not seen where Rinder has adopted any of the excuses for his refusal to tell the truth that are being floated for him, but has simply been pretending that he is telling the truth. His supporters like CIC then double curve the people like me who challenge the pretense. CIC’s implication that Rinder not telling the truth but publicly pretending to tell the truth evidences what CIC called courage, is another post-truth jewel.

When I wrote “There is hardly any cost involved,” I was, of course, talking about production costs. I was considering that for Remini to fulfill her desire to help the Scientologists’ victims, she could facilitate a meeting between Rinder and me, or otherwise get him to tell the truth. She and her production company had a lot of costs in producing the Aftermath series; and relative to these costs, there is hardly any cost involved in Rinder debriefing about his years in the Scientologists’ criminal conspiracy.

Beyond that, sure there are costs to telling the truth. I know a great deal about what happens. People might hate you and revile you. Rinder has done that to me for I guess thirty-five years.  People might terrorize you, or frame you, or black PR you around the world. Rinder did that to me, just for speaking up, just for telling the truth. People might bankrupt you, try to jail you, or drive you from your home, and Rinder did that, just to shut me up and punish me for telling the truth. There are, however, also costs to not telling the truth. Ultimately, these costs could be far worse than the costs of telling the truth.

My advice to Rinder is to pay no attention to the sort of excuses CIC is giving you for your continued part in the criminal conspiracy you’ve been part of for so many years, but be brave, speak up and tell the truth about it all.

Notes

Speak Your Mind

*