Gerry Talks...

You are here: Home / Archives for black PR

black PR

by

A letter to Mike Rinder: Your victim speaks up (Part 1)

To the weak, to the cowardly, to the reprehensively irrational, dishonesty and underhanded dealings, the harming of others and the blighting of their hopes, seem to be the only way of conducting life. Unethical conduct is actually the conduct of destruction and fear. Lies are told because one is afraid of the consequences should one tell the truth. Thus, the liar is inevitably a coward, the coward is inevitably a liar. —Science of Survival © L. Ron Hubbard, 1951, © L. Ron Hubbard Library © 2007

The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile. —Judgment entered 1984 in Scientology v. Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court, case no. C 420153, affirmed on appeal, 1991

Dear Mike:

Last summer, Sharone Stainforth wrote a public note pleading with you to do the right thing; specifically that you tell the truth about the bad you did in Scientology. She mentions me, which is logical because I am a person you victimized most royally. Also, among your victims, I have been one who has communicated to you and publicly spoken up about you not doing the right thing. For several years I have addressed the fact, and cruelty, that you have not told the truth about all the victimizing you did and are doing. Stainforth initially made me think of writing something about all this, and I just read your blog article with the timely title “Truth Matters.”

As you know, I have undertaken to speak for all your victims you have not told the truth about, all your victims you have not helped when you easily could have, or anyone really you ever thought or sought to silence or destroy. All it would take to help is the easy and pleasant truth. Stainforth also spoke up for all your victims, and deserves your thanks as well as ours. I am writing both to do the same myself, on my own and others’ behalves, and to advocate that you do the same – speak up for your victims.

Sharone Stainforth wrote:

Mike Rinder has done a lot, but it’s not enough, I have always said this and I will not back down now. Gerry Armstrong comes to mind straight off the bat.

My own Father went to his grave never talking about what he did in Scientology and I know it was bad! Please don’t become my Father, Mike Rinder!

Please do the right thing, please!

I know you are doing good, but you ain’t going far enough and YOU need to.

I have a lot of sympathy for your plight but it only goes so far and then I lose it.1

What a gift! It is not unpleasant to speak up another time, to write another whole chapter in my extraordinary history with you, Mike. You indeed did many bad things to silence or destroy me, my friends and associates, and other similarly situated persons – wogs, Homo sapiens — in the Suppressive Person class. The vast number and devilishness of the bad things you have done to us give your relationship with us a biblical quality. If only you had stood up thirty-six years ago and refused to dedicate yourself to the unholy role of persecuting us for your functionally unholy masters.

Since you began communicating publicly, after claiming you have left the Miscavige sect’s control, I have made real and sincere efforts to get you to tell the truth about what you did to us. Other people have also publicly discussed your role and your refusal to tell this simple but urgent and important truth. 2

Recently, Chuck Beatty commented on Tony Ortega’s blog in response to a Chris Owen article about the 1985 Julie Christofferson trial in Portland, OR3:

Gerry Armstrong deserves so many thanks. I wish Mike Rinder someday tells of the op he was part of with the luring of Gerry with the “loyal officers” ploy. That incident, Gerry and Mike Rinder, on the park bench in Griffith Park, I hope Mike tells who wrote that op and all the discussions, and who pushed that op, using “loyal officers” as pretended insider defectors to whom Gerry was trying to be connected. Maybe that op was more than I imagined it was, but why the choice of the “loyal officers” and by whom, for that op, that rings Miscavige in my mind.

Poster “gtsix” also commented:

And as Rinder dealt with wogs more than others in the SO, he really knew what was occurring. He knew about Fair game, as he was the man who did it (not all of it, and not the only person, but umm… head of OSA/). He fair-gamed Gerry Armstrong and spy lied to him way back in 1984 – and has never come clean about what he personally did, or what he witnessed.

He knew exactly what he was into.

As I have also shown, you have not just failed to tell the truth, Mike, but have, in vital ways, continued serving the Miscavige conspiracy’s evil purposes toward us, the very persons you persecuted and made others persecute from your official Sea Org (“SO”) positions. You have never told the truth about why you do so. You have never told the truth, to me anyway, about what you believe or claim prevents you from telling the truth that I am asking you to tell, or what you believe or claim prevents you from helping your victims. Because you refuse to explain why you still serve the Scientology conspiracy’s purposes against me and other similarly placed wogs, I will attempt the necessary analysis.

As you know, you have never corrected the black propaganda you disseminated and made others disseminate, and you have never spoken up to remedy injustices you perpetrated and made others perpetrate. You have made no effort to communicate adult-to-adult with me, but have treated me with contempt, just as you treated me when it was officially your job in Scientology to hate and silence or destroy me. I’ve written about these matters both publicly and to you directly.

It is obvious that your refusal to correct your black PR — now that you are publicly producing “deep regrets,” newfound “compassion,” and the idea you are “doing something about it” — is to generate the illusion and false impression that your black PR for your conspiracy was not black PR at all, but the truth. Generating false impressions in people was one of your key functions for decades inside Scientology, and it has remained your function since you have been claiming to have left.

If black PR is the truth, logic says, it therefore needs no correction – by the compassionate, the honest, the sincere, the just. If black PR is the truth, whatever evil, in anyone’s eyes, was done to your black PR victims, was justified. Consequently, in this psycho-philosophic “reasoning,” the victims seeking truth or justice are “proven,” just by your snubbing their approaches or requests, to be as bad or undeserving as you black PRed them and made others black PR them when you were officially inside the Hubbard-Miscavige sect. Your refusal to address your black propagandizing is more black propaganda, implicit black PR.

Notes

by

The awful unlawfulness of it all

Wikipedia: Gag order in United States

Gag orders can be part of a settlement agreement between two parties. In the state of Pennsylvania in 2011, a lifetime gag order on the discussion of fracking was agreed to by a family as part of their agreement with the oil and gas drilling company Range Resources. An attorney for Range Resources claimed in court that the gag order covered not only the adults in the family, but also the children, then aged seven and ten years old, and that the company intended to enforce it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States

Peter Soderqvist1: The Armstrong settlement may have been unlawfully obtained (forced, duress etc to sign!) The law maybe wrong, but the settlement in the Armstrong case is by the law as can be seen above!1

Peter:

That’s very funny, but, No! The contractual conditions that I refuse to comply with are not lawful, by US Law.

By lawful is meant allowed by the law. This from Black’s Law Dictionary is helpful:

Lawful. Legal; warranted Or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law.

The principal distinction between the terms “lawful” and “legal” is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is “lawful” implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is “legal” implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense “illegal” approaches the meaning of “invalid.” For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word “lawful” more clearly implies an ethical content than does “legal.” The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction that the word “legal” is used as the synonym of “constructive,” which “lawful” is not. Thus “legal fraud” is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. “Lawful fraud” would be a contradiction of terms. Again, “legal” is used as the antithesis of “equitable.” Thus, we speak of “legal assets,” “legal estate,” etc., but not of “lawful assets,” or “lawful estate.” But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a “lawful” writ, warrant, or process is the same as a “legal” writ, warrant, or process.2

The only orders that a citizen has a duty to obey are lawful orders. The injunction is unlawful, so I have no concern that I am violating either a duty or a lawful order – and am in no way a scofflaw as the people hating me say — when I openly communicate my experiences or knowledge about L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, Scientologists, etc. and openly refuse to be unlawfully jailed or unlawfully fined.

In the military, personnel have a specific duty to disobey unlawful orders, and this concept can also be applicable to civilian matters.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.3

A number of times over the years, I have mentioned the matter of the Scientologists’ court orders’ unlawfulness, and the consequent absence of any obligation to comply with them. See, e.g., this September 2009 letter to Mark Rathbun:

The analogy is closer to reality than most people would imagine, I would imagine, because, although I have not been falsely imprisoned all the years of your analogous victim above, the Scientology conspiracy did obtain and currently possesses a series of unlawful orders jailing me in California and fining me. I simply didn’t comply with these unlawful orders because they’re unlawful, and no one has any lawful obligation in California, or anywhere in the US, to comply with any order that isn’t lawful. There are still unlawful orders to jail me in California, and you could be very helpful in getting them canceled. If I had complied with even one of those unlawful orders jailing me, the Scientology cultists could have kept me jailed for years, or decades or forever.

You know all the details of the Miscavige regime’s unlawful orders against me, in fact you know details of all Miscavige’s and his regime’s fair game on me, up until 2005, I suppose, when you say you blew from Gilman. I’ll provide a brief description of the unlawful orders and circumstances, and some comments on the relevant related issues, however, so that others who will read this will have enough information to create a pretty clear picture. The available and relevant documents, of course, for all Scientology’s legal cases against me are well organized on my site.

The 1995 injunction Scientology got against me in California Superior Court in Marin County was obtained unlawfully and is on its face unlawful. The injunction has been one of the most insane, self-destructive successes imaginable for Scientology. What a flap! And it’s still ongoing. And you, Mark, were involved in the litigation to obtain the injunction, and in the enforcement actions following its unlawful grant. In fact, you were, throughout many of those years, directly over the litigation. It’s funny really, if you could think about it, that you write to Bert Fields that you held the “second highest ecclesiastical position in the [Scientology] religion” when you were over litigation. This supports the reality that litigation is an ecclesiastical activity, or religious expression, or religious exercise. In my life, as I have proven, it certainly is.4

Or, e.g., this letter last year to Dan Sherman:

Although I cannot be in contempt of court for violating your contractual conditions, I do acknowledge that I have been found in contempt of court multiple times for violating your court order. Your injunction, however, is unlawful, and no one has any legal obligation to comply with an unlawful order. You Scientologists’ desiring, obtaining and attempting to enforce this unlawful court order actually evidences your abysmal character and antisocial intentions. Despite how threatening and deleterious it has been in my life, I am glad that I have violated your unlawful court order, as I am doing here in responding to your black PR. I will continue to violate your unlawful order because it is unlawful and because it is wrong for everyone for me to obey it.

It is no more lawful to silence a person by court order about the Scientology religion or his religious beliefs about Scientology, his experiences with Scientology, or his knowledge of the Scientology religion, even though Scientology is an antisocial religion with a murderous philosophy, than it is to silence a person about traditional religions such Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Buddhism. US court orders that silence a person about his religious beliefs, experiences or knowledge, and punish him for communicating these, show that your country’s claims of religious freedom are massively hypocritical. Since what has happened to me obviously can happen to Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, etc. everyone everywhere in the world is justified in opposing the US for its great hypocrisy and its threat to everyone’s religious freedom.

Why the US has taken this cowardly, duplicitous route regarding religious freedom is not completely known. Certainly the US has done so for antisocial purposes that align with you Scientologists’ antisocial purposes. Your claims of promoting and defending religious freedom, when you are silencing good people about their religious beliefs, experiences and knowledge and jailing and ruining them for their free exercise of religion, are shocking in their hypocrisy. Everyone everywhere in the world is justified in opposing all of you and fighting you to the death. That is your contribution to religion, to religious freedom and to world peace.

Yes, you have a jail sentence against me. But that simply shows how antisocial Scientologists make each other with Scientology. Your gloating shows how depraved your religion has made you. I will never serve your jail sentences, because they are unlawful. And I will fight you Scientologists’ unlawful orders and jail sentences, and your antisocial writings and criminal fair game actions until the end of my life.

So yes, you need to say more on this matter, Dan. You can do it. You are not too old, and it is not too late. You have within you the guts to stand up and tell the truth. Yes, Scientologists will hate, revile and fair game you. But that is far better than staying with the haters, revilers and fair gamers and wasting your life destroying the good people who have found the guts and have told the truth. Believe it or not, you can still be a hero. Come out and communicate.5

Maybe fracking is something that a person can be lawfully compelled to be silent about. We will try to find out more about this case.

I wonder if the fracking company Range Resources, and its affiliates, and all their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, attorneys and assigns are permitted to say whatever they want about the Pennsylvania Sucker family, no matter how hateful or defamatory, and the Suckers can be ruined and imprisoned if they respond to defend their reputations or persons or loved ones. And when seven-year old Suzie Sucker is asked in school to speak on the energy sector, ground water, or job opportunities in Pennsylvania, and she mentions fracking, off to the pokey.

Unlike fracking (which is ridiculous and questionable enough) religious beliefs, religious experiences, and religion, are not things a person can lawfully be silenced about. The Scientologists cannot now claim that their cult, no matter how irreligious it is, is not a religion; that their activities, no matter how antisocial or criminal they are, are not religious; and that Hubbard’s writings, no matter how murderous his philosophy is, are not scripture. That false flagged ship has sailed. The Scientologists are caught by their own evil purposes here, falling back on sick black propaganda by sick people on sick message boards. They never predicted that their gags would come to this: their criminal conspiracy would be laid bare by the guy they most tried to gag, and they would be hoist on their own religion petard.

The contractual conditions for which I have been sued, bankrupted, enjoined and punished are unlawful – and not just a bit, but disgustingly, evilly unlawful.

It would not matter if there was no duress whatsoever, and I had been the person pressuring everyone else to sign; these contractual conditions are unlawful. They unlawfully, needlessly, and cruelly violate the First Amendment’s religion clause and international human rights charters, and they are elements in a very long and ongoing criminal conspiracy against rights.

Nevertheless, the duress was profound and psyche-altering. It is another element in the Scientologists’ conspiracy. There can be no doubt that the evidence of duress presented to the trial court was sufficient to demonstrate a triable issue. To deny me a trial on the evidence supporting a multitude of defenses, including duress, to the Scientologists’ contract claims, was the kind of judicial malfeasance one grows up thinking is only on TV. If you have an interest in knowing what happened in the Armstrong 4 case where the Scientologists were granted summary judgment in 1995 please see the documents we have available here: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a4/index.php

Also see, e.g., my opening brief filed in August1997 in my appeal from the Scientologists’ judgment:

There is a Triable Issue as to Duress

In his January 27, 1995 order on Scn’s first summary adjudication motion of certain causes of action of its complaint, Judge Thomas stated, regarding GA’s defense of having signed Scn’s SA because of duress, that GA’s own declaration shows that he did not execute the agreement under duress in that it shows he carefully weighed his options. Judge Thomas also stated that GA relied on the conduct of attorney Flynn, a third party, to establish duress, yet provided no evidence showing that plaintiff had reason to know of the duress. (CT 4236-9)

In his opposition to Scn’s second summary adjudication motion of its complaint GA provided evidence of Flynn’s being fair game and a target of many Scn attacks from 1979 until the settlement. (SS 1B, CT 8418-20) In that Scn was the source of the attacks which included some 15 lawsuits, bar complaints and framing with a check forgery, it is obvious that Scn knew of at least that aspect of the duress on Flynn. Scn also knew of all its own acts of fair game directed at GA up to that time, and at all the other settling parties. It goes without saying that the purpose of fair game in its many forms is to apply duress in its many forms to its designated targets. GA filed as part of his evidence declarations by several individuals who had knowledge of fair game. (Hana Whitfield, CT 7780-7887;see, e.g., 7788-91, 7808-27; Dennis Erlich, CT 7888-99 at 7891; Margery Wakefield, CT 7900-41 at 7903; Keith Scott, CT 7942-52 at 7945; Malcolm Nothling, CT 7953-9 at 7955, 7958; Jonathon Atack, CT 7960-8038, at 7962-4, 7977-80; Nancy McLean, CT 8939-49 at 40,1; Lawrence Wollersheim, CT 8052-216 at 8053-59, 8074-212)

That Flynn, GA and the other settling individuals were targets of fair game is also shown in the “settlement agreement” between Flynn and his clients, wherein is stated:

“We the undersigned, agree and acknowledge that many of the cases/ clients involved in this settlement…have been subjected to intense, and prolonged harassment by the Church of Scientology throughout the litigation… that [Flynn] or his firm’s members have been required to defend approximately 17 lawsuits and/or civil/criminal contempt actions instituted by the Church of Scientology against him, his associates and clients, that he and his family have been subjected to intense and prolonged harassment…” (CT 5486,7)

The idea that duress applied by a third party to a person to get him to sign a document cannot be ascribed to the party seeking the person’s signature is not supported by common sense. If an agent of a corporation holds a gun to the head of an attorney’s wife, and the attorney tells his client he must sign the corporation’s document or the attorney’s wife will be killed, although the corporate agent doesn’t know what the attorney says to the client, the agent and his corporation are still the source of and responsible for the duress on the attorney’s client. In this case, the threat of Scn continuing fair game to Flynn, his wife, family, law firm and clients was the gun held to all their heads. That Scn was holding its fair game gun to everyone’s head was the communication Flynn relayed to GA to get him to sign Scn’s document.

The nature of the SA itself is also an inference of duress since what attorney, but one under tremendous duress, would have his client sign such a document, knowing intimately the history of fair game by the organization who concocted it. It is clear that Flynn had, before presenting Scn’s SA to GA, already agreed to sign a contract to not represent or defend GA if GA was attacked in the future. Such a contract is illegal. What attorney, one as competent as Flynn, would allow his client to be so exposed and defenseless to future attacks, except an attorney under duress, or one thoroughly corrupted. There is too much evidence of duress to believe that Flynn was just corrupt.

The duress at the time of the settlement, contrary to how it might be viewed at first glance, is actually demonstrated by Scn’s continuing to fair game GA afterward. Tricking and lying to a designated target are parts of the basic fair game doctrine. CT 6934; SS 1A, CT 8412) Scn tricked GA into signing its document by lying about ceasing its attacks. This was acceptable Scn tactics because GA is designated an SP and hence fair game.

Duress is also evidenced by Flynn’s communications to GA throughout this litigation. Flynn has continually told him that he would like to help GA but that he is afraid to. Flynn signed a SA with Scn as well, and has refused to come forward throughout this litigation, despite telling GA that he “would be there for [him]” if he had any trouble with Scn after the settlement. (GA Declaration, 7/20/94 CT 2298) GA filed a declaration executed April 7, 1995 stating what Flynn would testify to if he were released by Scn from its contract with him. (CT 7678-83) Contracts which limit an attorney’s ability to practice or limit his clients are illegal.

In his order of October 6, Judge Thomas stated again that GA had not shown that Scn “was aware of Flynn’s purported duress of defendant.” (CT 8679) That is not the issue; the issue is Scn’s duress of Flynn, GA and everyone else involved. What Flynn stated to GA may be hearsay, but what Scn did over its years of attacks on Flynn and GA, and what it would continue to do if GA didn’t sign is the source of the duress.

Judge Thomas stated that “careful weighing of options” is completely inconsistent with an absence “of free exercise of [GA’s] will power” or his having “no reasonable alternative to succumbing.” That cannot be true. A person with a gun at his head may weigh his options just as carefully as a person with free exercise of his will. His options are, however, radically different. In this case, GA’s options were either sign Scn’s document or have Scn continue to threaten and attack his attorneys, their families, the 20 other people who wanted out from the threats and attacks, and himself. Also included in GA’s weighing of his options was Scn’s promise through Flynn that it would cease all its fair game activities against everyone. Flynn’s statements to GA that the SA’s prohibitions were not worth the paper they were printed on and unenforceable, although perhaps ultimately true, are also reflective of duress, and were also part of GA’s weighing of his options. Some people carefully weigh things; some people don’t. It is the nature of the options being weighed, carefully or not, which is the true indicator of duress. Judge Thomas did not examine GA’s options. These are options which must be examined by the trier of fact.6

I presented my facts and argument as I understood them at the time in a report to the US Department of Justice in 2004, which is in the form of a sworn declaration. I did not have all the evidence I now have of the Justice Department and the IRS’s participation in the conspiracy against rights. I have excerpted a section here, but also urge you to read the whole report.

  1. If Congress has made a law that now makes it possible for people to be prohibited in the free exercise of religion, Congress did so in violation of the “free exercise clause” of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and without repealing or amending the First Amendment. It is, obviously, inconceivable that the framers and ratifiers of the First Amendment had in mind in 1791 a qualifier to the Amendment that would allow churches or religions to use the U.S.’s secular courts to prohibit people, with $50,000 liquidated damages penalties, from discussing God, Christ, Christianity, the Bible, other Christian texts, and the person’s Christian beliefs, experiences and knowledge, and send people to jail if they refused to stop discussing these religious subjects. The First Amendment, of course, states:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 7

  1. It is also inconceivable that the framers and ratifiers of the First Amendment had in mind an exception that would allow a new “religion,” or a noxious cult, two hundred years later to use the U.S.’s secular courts to prohibit someone, on penalty of $50,000 in liquidated damages, from discussing that new “religion’s” “source,” “ecclesiastical head,” “scriptures,” and the person’s religious beliefs, experiences and knowledge in that “religion.” If it has become lawful for Scientology to use the U.S.’s secular courts to prohibit the free exercise of religion, by prohibiting a person’s discussion of the religion and his religious beliefs, experiences and knowledge, whereas it would be absurd, outrageous, impossible and unlawful for a Christian church to use the secular courts to prohibit the free exercise of religion, by prohibiting a person from discussing God, Christ, Christianity, the Bible, other Christian texts, and the person’s Christian beliefs, experiences and knowledge, then by this favoritism and special privilege conferred on Scientology to so prohibit the free exercise of religion, Congress must have made a law, in violation of the First Amendment, which effectively establishes Scientology as the U.S. State Religion.
  1. Since the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was important enough to be framed and ratified, to have survived for over two hundred years, and to have guided the U.S. Government’s conduct and the conduct of its citizens all those years, every citizen would have a right, pursuant to the same First Amendment, to discuss either the new “Scientology law” that creates exceptions to the establishment and free exercise clauses, or, if no such law exists, to discuss Scientology’s assault on the First Amendment and the organization’s efforts to create such exceptions. This right to speak about the new “Scientology law” or Scientology’s assault on the First Amendment would necessarily involve a right to discuss the identify, nature, teachings, doctrines, policies, practices and personnel of the entity for which the new “law” was created or which is executing the First Amendment assault. This right to speak about the entity for which the new “law” was made or which is assaulting the First Amendment would naturally extend, and even particularly extend, to the person or persons who would be most affected and whose rights would be most endangered by such new “law” or assault.
  1. If Scientology is being granted this special right to prohibit a person from discussing the organization’s source, leader and teachings and the person’s beliefs, experiences and knowledge in Scientology, which right would never be granted to, e.g., a Christian church, because Scientology is not really “church” and not really a religion, it is not really organized for “religious purposes,” and its writings really are not “scriptures,” then Scientology’s representations that it is a “religion” organized for “religious purposes,” and that its writings are “scriptures,” are fraudulent. Even if, however, Scientology is a global religious fraud, it would still be lawfully impermissible to prohibit a person from discussing the fraud, its creator, its operation, its literature and the person’s beliefs about the fraud, his experiences in and with the fraud, and his knowledge of the fraud. Prohibiting a person from communicating about a fraud, and punishing him for communicating about a fraud, would still constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. §241.
  1. That all of the “settlement contract’s” “beneficiaries,” in addition to being co-conspirators in their organization’s conspiracy to deprive me of my rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. §241, are also knowing participants in a gargantuan religious fraud is shown by the fact that this conspiracy is a willful, flagrant violation of their own “Creed of the Church of Scientology,” which states in pertinent part:

We of the Church believe:

That all men of whatever race, color, or creed were created with equal rights; That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance; That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives; That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity; That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense; That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments; That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others; …

And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly. 8

  1. In truth, as Scientology’s “settlement contract” proves beyond any doubt, every director, officer, employee, representative, volunteer, agent and attorney of every Scientology corporation, organization, group or affiliated entity is bound by “contract” to violate each of these creedal precepts, even if such a creed violation also constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. §241 for which each co-conspirator could be sentenced to up to ten years in U.S. Federal prison. On the other hand, I refuse to participate in their criminal conspiracy, indeed by law I am obligated to refuse to so participate, and I refuse to violate any of these creedal precepts. Since a “creed” is a doctrinal formula intended to define what is held by a church or religion as true and essential and to exclude what is held to be a false belief, it is clear that I am by creed more of a Scientologist than any of those directors, officers, employees, representatives, volunteers and agents of every Scientology corporation, organization, group or affiliated entity who comprise the “contract’s” “beneficiaries.”
  1. Even if a person had completely left Christianity and forsworn its creed, he could not lawfully be prohibited by a Christian church from discussing God, Christ, Christianity, the Bible, other Christian texts, or his Christian beliefs, experiences and knowledge, because, among other reasons, he could decide to reconvert to his former religion at any time. Thus, even if I had completely left Scientology, and even forsworn its “creed,” which clearly I have not, because the organization calls itself a “religion,” I could not lawfully be prohibited from discussing Scientology, its “scriptures,” other writings about the “religion,” the “religion’s” founder Hubbard, its “ecclesiastical head” Miscavige, and my Scientology-related religious beliefs, experiences and knowledge, since, among other reasons, I could decide to reconvert to Scientology at any time. For the free exercise of religion to exist at all, citizens would have to retain the absolute right to freely leave and reconvert to any religion as many times and as often as they chose.
  1. Because Scientology has chosen to call itself a “religion,” the “churches,” organizations, corporations, groups, entities, and individuals comprising the Scientology “religion” have necessarily given up any right to prohibit or control the practice or exercise of the “religion,” except on their own premises and among the members of their own, wholly controlled “churches,” organizations, corporations, groups or entities. It would be ridiculous of a Christian church to attempt to prohibit a person from practicing or exercising the religion of Christianity, because he could simply go to any number of other Christian churches that are not under the control of the prohibiting church.
  1. It is equally ridiculous of this one Scientology “church,” the “contracting” “Church of Scientology International,” and all of the other “beneficiaries” of the “settlement contract,” no matter how many of them there are, to prohibit me from practicing or exercising Scientology, because I do not need any of them to do so. I can practice or exercise Scientology by myself, with any group, organization or “church” I form to be able to do so, or with any Scientologist or Scientology group, organization or “church” already not under the control of these “beneficiaries.”
  1. Since a person cannot lawfully be prohibited from converting, reconverting or re-reconverting to Christianity, or lawfully prohibited by one Christian church from attending any or all of the other churches in the world, or lawfully prohibited from practicing or exercising Christianity, he could not lawfully be prohibited from discussing God, Christ, Christianity, the Bible, other Christian texts, or his Christian beliefs, experiences and knowledge, since he would have to be able to discuss these things just to participate at all in the Christian religion. Likewise, a person cannot lawfully be prohibited from converting, reconverting or re-reconverting to Scientology, since it calls itself a “religion,” or lawfully prohibited by this set of Scientology “beneficiaries” to a “contract,” from practicing or exercising Scientology, and consequently he could not lawfully be prohibited from discussing Hubbard, Scientology, its “scriptures,” other writings about the “religion,” Miscavige, and the person’s Scientology-related religious beliefs, experiences and knowledge, because he would have to be able to discuss these things just to participate at all in the Scientology religion.
  1. Because of human beings’ innate desire for religious liberty, which was a major factor in the early settlement of the U.S., and which the framers and ratifiers of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution certainly recognized, it is natural, and almost inevitable, that the hypothetical Christian parishioner who was conned and threatened by his hypothetical Christian church into signing a “contract” that prohibited him from discussing Allah, Mohammed, the Koran or Islam, would, even just because of that proscription, search out people with whom to discuss these prohibited subjects, and discuss them.
  1. Because of the same innate desire for religious liberty, it is natural and inevitable that the hypothetical person prohibited by the hypothetical Christian church’s “contract” from discussing God, Christ, Christianity, the Bible, other Christian texts, or his Christian beliefs, experiences and knowledge, would risk being assessed $50,000 per utterance in liquidated damages penalties, and risk being jailed and fined, to exercise his religious freedom and discuss these “contractually” prohibited subjects. There have in fact been Christians in recent years who have chosen to discuss these subjects in repressive third world countries where the Christians knew such discussions could be punishable with execution.
  1. It was therefore natural, and, God being What He is, inevitable that, out of my own God-given desire for religious liberty, and a growing understanding of what religious liberty is, brought about in no small part by my “religious” persecution at the hands of the Scientologists and their agents, I would come to discuss and speak out about the very subjects the organization sought, by “contract” and extrajudicial fair game, to prohibit me from discussing. It was also natural, God-given and inevitable, since, after leaving Scientology, I had been brought to reconvert to Christianity, that I would be brought to speak out about Hubbard’s and Scientology’s anti-Christian teachings. Because such a reconversion is entirely in God’s Hands and cannot be predicted by terrestrial hominids, and because what God will call a person to do as a Christian is also entirely in His Hands, it is not rational to try by “contract” to proscribe that conversion or what the convert will be called to do, and such a “contract” cannot be lawfully enforceable because it necessarily proscribes the free exercise of religion.9

If it is lawful to judicially prohibit citizens from mentioning their religious beliefs or religious experiences, then it must also be lawful to judicially compel what citizens must say about their religious beliefs or religious experiences, and judicially compel their religious activities. So Muslims could create a contract that compelled their small children to remain Muslims, praise Allah, pray five times daily, and go to the mosque every Friday for the rest of their lives. If the children disobeyed, the Muslims get a court order, and a warrant, and the County Sheriff drags the child off to jail. Fortunately, such a contract is still lawfully judicially unenforceable.

Although comparable to the Nazis’ judicial treatment of Jews and the American Whites’ judicial treatment of Black Slaves, there is a significant difference in the Scientologists’ judicial treatment of me. In the Nazi period, the enslavement and punishment of Jews was lawful by the Nazis’ laws. During the slavery period in the US, enslaving and punishing Blacks was lawful by US laws. But the Scientologists’ enslavement and punishment of me is not lawful by US laws. The Scientologists and their collaborators claim their orders against me are lawful, and act as if they are lawful. But they know that not only are their orders unlawful, but they are evil and indefensible.

US officials also know that the Scientologists’ court orders and conspiracy against me are unlawful and shameful, and that the US’s participation against me with the Scientologists is also unlawful and shameful. The evidence to date leads me to the conclusion that key, powerful US Federal Government officials, just like the Scientology hierarchy with whom they interface, enjoy victimizing people. Like the Scientologists, they’re enthusiastic or in action doing evil to good people. Like the Scientologists, they do most of their evil in secret. That is the message of the IRS’s deal with the Scientologists, and what has to be confronted. It’s a game to them.

Notes

by

Russian Scientologists Erasing Consciences for their US Masters

The Scientologists have just published a new and updated black PR page on me on their Russian Religious Freedom Watch hate site:
http://religiousfreedomwatch-ru.org/religious-extremists/gerald-armstrong

The Scientologists provided a pdf with an English translation:
http://religiousfreedomwatch-ru.org/uploads/Armstrong-33_years_of_bla_bla-EN.pdf

They have some nice Anonymous protest pics from Vancouver and Hamburg, and a goofy goose step pic allegedly from London, but unrelated to me.

In a section the cultists call “Connections to criminal organizations” they state about my relationship with Anonymous:

In addition, Armstrong has tight connections to the members and attorney of extremist movement Anonymous. Three executives of this movement were imprisoned by court in 2008 due to organizing of criminal acts against the Church of Scientology. Some of the members of this movement were making death threats and were committing acts of terrorism.

Armstrong was representing interests of Vancouver Anonymous at the anti-Scientology conference in Hamburg in 2009 and took part in protest march organized by this movement.

I have no clue if Anonymous even has an attorney, and I don’t have a tight connection to him or her if Anonymous does have one. I would like to be tightly connected to this attorney, if one exists, so please let me know.

Interestingly, Russian Scientologist and RFW agent Nikolay Varshavsky wrote me in 2011, claiming that the Scientologists wanted to recreate my “whole story picture using certain and reliable facts and documents,” but clearly signaling their intention to further fair game me on religiousfreedomwatch-ru. I answered Varshavsky fairly fairly and forthrightly. http://gerryarmstrong.ca/archives/314

 

by

The Suppressive Person Doctrine On Trial: Opening Statement by Gerry Armstrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RPPjOSFKok

Earlier this month, I proposed to Marty Mark Rathbun to debate him about statements he had made about me, which I knew to be erroneous, in his recently published book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior.

Before we settled on specific statements that concerned my personal history, it was decided to first address the transpersonal issue of the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person doctrine, or SP doctrine, which affects and has damaged so many people’s lives.

Mr. Rathbun has since claimed that he no longer calls himself a Scientologist, and I certainly should take that as a triumph. But he has not repudiated the Suppressive Person doctrine, nor his assertions about Suppressive Persons in his book. Nor, for that matter, his statements about me in Memoirs1, or anywhere else.

Mr. Rathbun says at page 105:

such an individual was labeled a suppressive person – roughly equivalent to a sociopath or psychopath.

And he says at page 164:

A suppressive person, in Scientology vernacular, is roughly equivalent to a sociopath – a conscienceless individual who could put on a convincing front of wanting others to thrive, while harboring the secret goal of destroying everyone in his or her vicinity.  Hubbard had written and lectured on the subject rather extensively in the sixties. Ironically, thirty years later the very mental health profession that condemned Hubbard during his life would describe the sociopath or psychopath in very much the same terms Hubbard had in the fifties and sixties.   A comparison between Hubbard’s writings and lectures, and current leading mental health texts on the subject bears this out.

My position, or proposition, is that a Suppressive Person, or SP, is not roughly equivalent to a sociopath or psychopath.

Mr. Hubbard did describe the sociopath or psychopath or antisocial personality in the 1960’s. His description is specious, self-serving, and unhelpful to the rest of us. Nevertheless, if misdescription is still description, Mr. Hubbard did describe this personality.

There is no argument that Mr. Hubbard’s misdescription of the antisocial personality has the odd term – such as “antisocial personality” itself  — or concept – such as “they’re destructive,” or “no sense of remorse or shame,” or “they appear quite rational” — that are very much the same as terms or concepts in descriptions of this personality in current leading mental health texts. It is clear that Mr. Hubbard took terms and concepts from mental health texts that were current when he wrote about the antisocial personality; so it is no wonder that there are similarities between those terms and concepts and terms and concepts in leading mental health texts today.

This does not mean, however, that Suppressive Persons are equivalent to sociopaths, psychopaths or antisocial personalities, or roughly, or remotely equivalent. There is no positive correlation between SPs and sociopaths, psychopaths or antisocial personalities. SPs, as Mr. Hubbard actually defined and classed us are very likely to be social personalities, even conscienceful personalities.

Since Mr. Rathbun accepted Mr. Hubbard’s assertion that SPs equate with antisocial personalities, he accepted Mr. Hubbard’s false data and black propaganda. There is no doubt that Mr. Hubbard made that assertion many years before Mr. Rathbun made it; not vice versa. Mr. Rathbun applied Mr. Hubbard’s judgments, directives or other scriptures. Mr. Hubbard did not apply what Mr. Rathbun said or wrote.

I consider it impossible that Mr. Rathbun is unaware of this equation’s falsity, or unaware that he is black PRing the SP class. It is reasonable to consider that he knows what he is doing. In any case, whether he is aware of it or not, he is still spreading this patently false and destructive, hence black, propaganda. I made a video on this issue last year in response to certain of Mr. Rathbun’s statements in his previous book What Is Wrong With Scientology?2In that book, he also equated SPs with sociopaths, psychopaths and antisocial personalities, and supported his equation with citations to mental health professionals’ writings on these personality disorders.

Because the SP class is created in Scientologists’ scripture, it is a religious class. Black PRing us as sociopaths, etc., is the foulest religious bigotry. The Scientologists’ SP doctrine locks them forever into religious bigotry. That is why they constantly accuse others of religious bigotry. Suppressive Persons really do form a class by scripture, which is confirmed by the Scientologists’ decades of words and actions against them.

The Scientologists’ common conditions of religious bigot can be relieved, and perhaps even fully erased, by acknowledging that SPs are not the antisocial personalities, sociopaths, etc. that Mr. Hubbard said and Mr. Rathbun and their scripture say.

The assertion that SPs equate with antisocial personalities is shown false by a simple, honest reading of Mr. Hubbard’s writings that define and identify the SP class, and by observing SPs and comparing them, or us, with what is honestly known about antisocial personalities, sociopaths and psychopaths.

Mr. Rathbun is not alone in his position. Other Scientologists, some Exscientologists, and even people beyond, have accepted, or at least have spread, that false equation.

Mike Rinder, like Mr. Rathbun, a long time enforcer of the Suppressive Person doctrine for the Scientologists, stated on his blog earlier this month3:

Suppressive Persons are denominated as those individuals who display the majority of characteristics of the anti-social personality.

This is false. It also contains a grammatical oddity. To denominate something means to name it. So, retaining his sentence elements, what Mr. Rinder meant was, and he should have written:

Those individuals who display the majority of characteristics of the anti-social personality are denominated “Suppressive Persons.”

This is false, however, because individuals denominated “Suppressive Persons” do not display the majority of the characteristics of antisocial personalities, or even any of these characteristics. What Mr. Rinder is saying is black PR.

Steve Hall, an “Independent” Scientology leader, as Mr. Rathbun has been, wrote, for example, on his blog in 2012, in an article he called “The Sociopath of Scientology,” referring to current cult head David Miscavige4:

it is easy to see in LRH’s [Mr. Hubbard’s] writings when he had encountered the sociopath or “suppressive person” because he starts to describe the personality several times.

[…]

the clearest picture of the sociopathic, antisocial or suppressive personality.

Mr. Hall also asserts that mental health professionals have validated Mr. Hubbard’s work identifying the characteristics of antisocial personalities.

Martha Stout has greatly contributed to the work that LRH began — she has identified the SP using criteria that are truly original. Sociopaths (SPs) currently number 4% in the US as I mentioned which puts social personalities at 96%.

Martha Stout is a psychologist, and author of the widely-read and often-cited book The Sociopath Next Door5, and she has done no such thing. She has not identified the SP or SPs, and she has provided no criteria for identifying them. She identified the sociopath, and it could be said that she provided criteria to do so. SPs are not, however, sociopaths, and the criteria for their respective identification are unrelated.

All criteria for identifying SPs are scientological and scriptural, provided by Mr. Hubbard. They are unalterable, as is all Scientology scripture, and may not be added to.

In 2009 the Tampa Bay Times recorded Amy Scobee saying6:

And the description of a suppressive person, if anyone wants to look it up on the Internet or whatever, the perfect example is the description of — the profile of a sociopath.

Ms. Scobee might really have believed this at the time, even as an Exscientologist, but it is false. The profile of a sociopath does not describe a Suppressive Person. Mr. Hubbard described, even defined, the SP very exactly in Scientology scripture.

Lawrence Wright in his 2013 Scientology book Going Clear says7:

Anyone who stands in the way of a thetan’s progress is a Suppressive Person (SP). This is a key concept in Scientology. Hubbard used the term to describe a sociopath.

Mr. Hubbard did not.

It is true that, more or less, anyone who stands in the way of a Scientologist’s progress in Scientology is a Suppressive Person or SP. That’s roughly per definition. It is true that this is a key concept in Scientology.

Mr. Hubbard did not, however, use the term Suppressive Person to describe a sociopath. He used the term sociopath, or really psychopath or antisocial personality, to describe a Suppressive Person. There is a difference.

The key scriptural policy letter for understanding the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person doctrine, and in which Mr. Hubbard defines SP quite clearly is Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter of March 1, 1965 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – the Fair Game Law.” In different contexts this policy letter is dated March 7, 1965.8

He states:

A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed at length in this policy letter.

In the same policy letter he provides further definitions for “Suppressive Acts:”

Suppressive Acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists.

Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist.

The “Suppressive Acts” Mr. Hubbard lists in that policy letter are virtually all Scientology-specific. For example, public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists. Public disavowal is not a Suppressive Act if it is disavowal of another religion, or another group, or a country, or a spouse, or a child; as long as the spouse or child is not a Scientologist in-good-standing.

For example, reporting Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities. Reporting any other organization or any wog or Homo sapiens to civil authorities is not a Suppressive Act. In fact, Scientology and Scientologists religiously report other people to the authorities, and even report falsely about them to have them wrongly charged.

For example, failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts. It is not a Suppressive Act to remain connected to an antisocial personality; as long as that antisocial personality doesn’t do anything to reduce Scientology’s influence or activities.

Mr. Hubbard states in the same policy letter that Scientology court procedures, called “Committees of Evidence,” are called to prove or disprove that persons or groups are guilty of Suppressive Acts. If so, the policy states, they are to be labeled Suppressive Persons or Groups, and are fair game. If a Committee of Evidence fails to demonstrate guilt of Suppressive Acts, the persons or groups must be absolved, and cease to be fair game.

Mr. Hubbard introduced Committees of Evidence into Scientology organizations in September 1963. He described them as “fact-finding bodies” that were convened in “justice matters” to hear evidence, arrive at findings, and make recommendations. Comm Evs were called by issuance of a “bill of particulars” that named the chairman, secretary and members, the interested parties, and “the matter to be heard and a summary of data to hand.” Mr. Hubbard wrote in his policy letter “Committees of Evidence, Scientology Jurisprudence, Administration of” dated September 7, 19639

TYPES OF BILLS: A Committee may hear any civil or criminal matter or dispute within the realm of Scientology whether the parties are connected with an organization or not. Libel, estranging marital partners, dismissals, debt, theft, mayhem, violations of Codes, deprivation of income or any dispute or harmful improper action of any kind may be heard.

Mr. Hubbard did not, however, issue a list of Comm Evable offenses, except for these general examples, until 1965. In his policy letter dated March 7, 1965, “Offenses and Penalties,”10 he wrote:

These are the penalties we have always more or less used, and these are the offenses which have been usually considered offenses in Scientology.

Formerly they were never written down or routinely enforced

[…]

Accordingly, this Code of Offenses and their penalties becomes firm and expressed policy.

Lack of specified offenses, penalties and recourse brings everyone to uncertainty and risk at the whim of those in command.

There are four general classes of crimes and offenses in Scientology. These are Errors, Misdemeanors, Crimes and High Crimes.

In the same policy letter, Mr. Hubbard wrote about “Crimes:” “These cover offenses normally considered criminal.” He then provided a lengthy list of “offenses which are treated in Scientology as crimes.” He wrote about “High Crimes:”

These are covered in HCO Policy Letters March 7, 1965, Issues I and II, and consist of publicly departing Scientology or committing Suppressive Acts.

After publication of his Offenses and Penalties Code, and High Crimes Code, by March 7, 1965,11 charges on Committee of Evidence Bills of Particulars came verbatim from these lists.

The “correction” of a declaration or assignment of the condition of Suppressive Person requires that a declared SP make a public announcement that actions attempted to suppress or attack Scientology were ignorant and unfounded. “Correction” does not require that a declared SP make a public announcement denouncing actions attempted to suppress or attack groups other than Scientology, or people other than Scientologists. “Correction” is Scientology-specific.

Additionally, I have not found where the psychiatric or psychological declaration or assignment of the condition of sociopath, psychopath or antisocial personality can be “corrected” by the sociopath, psychopath or antisocial personality making a public announcement that actions attempted to suppress or attack Scientology were ignorant and unfounded. This would only be workable if the world’s sociopaths, psychopaths or antisocial personalities only attacked Scientology, and Scientology was the only concept or entity on which attempted suppression or attack was ignorant and unfounded.

At the beginning of this policy letter8, Mr. Hubbard writes:

Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.

The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to Suppressive Persons or Groups.

A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology or a pc yet remains connected to a person or group that is a suppressive person or group.

Mr. Hubbard identified the “extreme urgency” of the Scientologists’ “mission” in a policy letter he issued February 7, 1965, just three weeks before his “Suppressive Acts” policy letter. The extreme urgency was, and remains for Scientologists, “Keeping Scientology Working (KSW)13”

Mr. Hubbard:

We’re not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better.

The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and in Scientology.

This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance.

Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past. Don’t muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten.

Do them and we’ll win.

At least by 1970, when he published it in a reissue of the “Keeping Scientology Working” policy letter, Mr. Hubbard would make any violation of any of his famous ten points of KSW a Suppressive Act. “Not having the correct technology,” “Not knowing the tech,” “Not knowing it’s correct,” “Not hammering out of existence incorrect tech,” etc. The list of Scientology’s Suppressive Acts would expand over time, and the additions were more Scientology-specific acts, or High Crimes.

The terms “High Crimes” and “Suppressive Acts” were used interchangeably by Mr. Hubbard in Scientology scripture and by Scientologists in Scientology.

A long list of Suppressive Acts is included in Scientology’s book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, and the same definitions are given for “SP,” “Suppressive Acts” and “PTS” as in the 1965 policy letter. The Ethics book I’m reading from is © 1998.14

Due to the extreme urgency of our mission I have worked to remove some of the fundamental barriers from our progress.

The chief stumbling block, huge above all others, is the upset we have with POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES and their relationship to suppressive persons or groups. (In the Ethics book, the Scientologists minusculized the “s” and the “p” of Suppressive Persons and the “g” of Groups.)

A POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCE is defined as a person who while active in Scientology or a preclear yet remains connected to a person or group that is a suppressive person or group.

A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by suppressive acts. (The Scientologists minusculized the “s” and “a” of Suppressive Acts.)

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or a Scientologist and which are listed here at length. (The original says, “which are listed at length in this policy letter.”)

On August 7, 1965 Mr. Hubbard issued a policy letter entitled “Suppressive Persons, Main Characteristics of.”15 “Suppressive” as a noun, or “Suppressive Person” appears 5 times in this policy letter. “SP,” or “SPs,” referring to Suppressive Persons, appear 41 times. There is no mention of antisocial personalities, psychopaths or sociopaths.

The 16 “characteristics” of SPs that Mr. Hubbard lists in this policy letter are virtually all Scientology-specific.  The “characteristics” concerned, for example,  Scientology policy, dissemination of Scientology, orgs, Scientology staff, auditing, the “Examiner” post, and “restimulation,” which has a particular meaning in Scientology.

On September 27,1966, a year and a half after issuing the “Suppressive Acts” policy letter, Mr. Hubbard issued a policy letter entitled “The Antisocial Personality – The Anti-Scientologist.”16 He also issued this policy letter as a “technical bulletin.” The title is the only place in this approximately 3,000 word document where the word “Scientologist” appears. The word “Scientology” does not appear. The term “antisocial” appears 59 times. Of those, “antisocial personality” or “antisocial personalities” appear 43 times. “Characteristic” or “characteristics” appear 12 times. Mr. Hubbard also uses “attributes,” referring to “characteristics,” which is the term known throughout Scientology.

In this policy letter, Mr. Hubbard lists what he claims are the 12 characteristics of the antisocial personality, and the converse 12 characteristics of the “social personality.” Scientologists learn very early in their indoctrination about these “12 characteristics” of the antisocial personality, and these describe what SPs are.

He wrote:

Thus it is the twelve given characteristics alone which identify the anti-social personality. And these same twelve reversed are the sole criteria of the social personality if one wishes to be truthful about them.

This policy letter is what is being used to show that Mr. Hubbard described the antisocial personality. The fact of his description is being used to equate antisocial personalities with anti-scientologists, or “Suppressive Persons.” This equation is being validated or proven, Mr. Rathbun and others say, because mental health scientists’ descriptions of the antisocial personality in the 21st century are in some ways or words similar to Mr. Hubbard’s 1966 description.

In a rewrite of the SP doctrine’s history, Steve Hall17 has altered the sequence in which Mr. Hubbard first published his Suppressive Acts or High Crimes list and his 12 characteristics of his antisocial personality.

For example, did you know that at one point LRH wrote in an HCOPL anyone who blows from course should be declared an SP? In other words, there are the 12 characteristics of an antisocial personality plus 12 characteristics of a social personality which together was at one time, “The Test.” Then later, there came a list of high crimes which apparently if you violated them, rendered the test irrelevant.

The High Crimes list was March 1965. “The Antisocial Personality, the Anti-Scientologist” with its 12 characteristics was September 1966. These “characteristics” were never the test, or a test, for identifying or declaring someone a Suppressive Person. SPs were identified by their commission of Suppressive Acts; that is, acts that might reduce Scientology’s influence or activities or the success of some Scientologist, such as L. Ron Hubbard. When SPs were identified, then the characteristics of antisocial personalities were ascribed to them, or smeared on them.

On 17 March 1965, Mr. Hubbard issued a policy letter entitled “Fair Game Law — Organizational Suppressive Acts — The Source of the Fair Game Law,”18 which specifically added “blowing,” as Mr. Hall put it, to the March 1, 1965 policy letter “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – The Fair Game Law.”

Students or pcs who resign or leave courses or sessions and refuse to return despite normal efforts, become suppressive of that course or organization and cease to have the rights of its protection or assistance.

So the correct sequence, using Mr. Hall’s terminology and process:

at one point LRH wrote an HCOPL that contained a list of high crimes, which if you violated them got you declared SP. Later, the same month, he wrote in an HCOPL: anyone who blows from course should be declared an SP! 18 months later there are his 12 characteristics of an antisocial personality plus 12 characteristics of a social personality which together LRH presented as “The Test.”

Mr. Hubbard had to have been lying about his 12 characteristics being the test, or any test, in Scientology, for identifying and declaring SPs. His test, as he states it in his “Antisocial Personality – Anti-Scientologist” policy letter is actually infantile and antisocial. But it was never used; and he ran all of Scientology. What was used for identifying and declaring SPs was the commission of SP Acts that might reduce his or his organization’s influence or successes.

Mr. Hubbard also used the term “psychopath” to label and black PR Suppressive Persons. For example in his policy letter “Ethics, the Design of,” dated December 7, 196919, he writes:

There are people who suppress. They are few. They often rise up to being in charge and then all things decay. They are essentially psychopathic personalities. Such want position in order to kill. Such as Ghenghiz Khan, Hitler, psychiatrists, psychopathic criminals, want power only to destroy. Covertly or overtly they pay only with death. They arrived where they arrived, in charge of things, because nobody when they were on their way up said “No”. They are monuments to the cowards, the reasonable people who didn’t put period to them while they were still only small bullies and still vulnerable.

Ethics has to get there before tech can occur. So when it doesn’t exist or goes out then tech doesn’t occur and suppression sets in and death follows.

According to an article entitled “Psychopathic Personality” by the late David T. Lykken, a behavioral geneticist and Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Psychiatry, which was published in the 2006 book Handbook of Psychopathy,20 the term “psychopathic personality” was first introduced into mental science in the late 1880’s. Mr. Hubbard has claimed that during that period, he was Cecil Rhodes, busy politicking in South Africa and creating a global diamond monopoly.

There is a mass of published material showing that mental health scientists have known about and described the psychopathic personality, the sociopathic personality, the antisocial personality, the aberrative personality, the merchant of chaos, the merchant of fear, decades before Mr. Hubbard described such people in Scientology scripture. For purposes of this debate, however, there is no need to go into this, and it can be done later.

For psychobiographical purposes, it is fascinating that Mr. Hubbard has claimed, or admitted, that in the 1930’s he had spent some time in St. Elizabeths Hospital, the Washington, DC psychiatric hospital, and had been personally assigned or connected to neurologist, psychiatrist and then hospital head William Alanson White. The American Psychopathological Association was founded in 1910, and Dr. White was its President in 1922.21

Suppressive Persons exist as Mr. Hubbard defined us in scripture. We have committed acts he identified as Suppressive Acts, and we’re unrepentant. We have not made public announcements that our actions attempted to suppress or attack Scientology were ignorant and unfounded. We are not, however, antisocial personalities, sociopaths, etc.

Mr. Hubbard and Scientologists also label us — the Suppressive Person class — as “psychotic,” “the true psychotic,” “psychos,” “insane,” and “the truly insane.” SPs, in the vast majority, are also not those people or in those conditions. All of these invectives are part of the Scientologists’ organized fair game campaign against SPs. Mr. Rathbun, writing on behalf of Scientologists everywhere, famously professed that they all truly believed me to be “psychotic,” in his submissions to the IRS on which Scientology’s 1993 US tax exemption is based22:

Our consistent view has been that the civil litigants are solely motivated by greed. The exception is Armstrong who we truly believe to be psychotic.

“Psychotic,” “insane,” etc., however, are not labels that Mr. Rathbun used for the SP class in his Memoirs book. He calls us roughly equivalent to sociopaths or psychopaths.

A very useful, and poignant, comparison can be made between the Scientologists’ SP doctrine and the German Nazis’ Jewish doctrine. There is a striking parallel between the Scientologists’ organized black PRing of Suppressive Persons as antisocial personalities, etc., and the Nazis’ organized black PRing of Jews as vermin.

Mr. Hubbard and Scientologists also dehumanize SPs as vermin, even in their scripture, calling us “parasites,” “rats,” “squirrels,” “lice.” Mr. Hubbard ordered such dehumanization as policy and practice, for example in his February 16, 1969 policy letter he titled “Battle Tactics23:”

The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, this means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing, complete with atrocity, war crimes trials, the lot. Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. That’s the enemy. What they love. That’s you.

You preserve the image or increase it of your own troops and degrade the image of the enemy to beast level.

The “troops” are the Scientologists, and the “enemy” is the Suppressive Person class, the people who, according to Scientology scripture, commit Suppressive Acts, and might reduce Scientology’s influence or activities or reduce some Scientologist’s success. Although Mr. Hubbard and Scientologists black PR SPs as vermin, Mr. Rathbun did not do so in his book. He doesn’t mention vermin. He black PRed us as sociopaths or psychopaths, and that is the issue here.

Hitler and his henchmen and supporters described Jews as vermin, labeled Jews as vermin, used their media machinery to black PR Jews as vermin, and treated Jews as vermin.

Vermin are pests or nuisances. They are harmful to health, threaten human society, and are difficult to control or exterminate. They are generally thought of as repulsive; and infestations of vermin are considered even more frightful and repulsive.

Vermin consume resources. They are parasitic. They breed and spread unless they are hunted down or otherwise restrained. Virtually all society agrees that they may, and must, be disposed of quietly and without sorrow.

Left uncontrolled, vermin lead to vermination, which is problematic to the human occupants of a region.

Since Hitler, et al. wrote, lectured and acted on their Jewish doctrine, many scientists have added considerable scientific knowledge confirming the existence of vermin, and their characteristics, treatment and handling, etc. These scientists include biologists, the scientists who study living things, zoologists who study animals, entomologists who study insects, and rodentologists who study rodents. All recognize vermin as a real and serious issue and problem.

But there has been no knowledge added, no papers published, in all that time, demonstrating, or even arguing, that Jewishness equated with verminishness.

There are Jews. There are vermin. They are not the same. They are not roughly equivalent.

There are SPs. There are sociopaths, psychopaths, antisocial personalities. They are not the same as, or roughly equivalent to, SPs.

The people who commit what Scientologists identify as Suppressive Acts are not who or what mental health scientists identify as antisocial personalities.

Equating us — people who might reduce Scientology’s influence by leaving it, or telling the truth about it to the media, courts and public — with the world’s antisocial personalities is willful black propaganda, and the people promulgating or forwarding this black PR are acting antisocially.

To demonstrate how illogical, and unconscionable, the Scientologists’ Suppressive Person Syllogism is – SPs exist, antisocial personalities exist, therefore SPs equal antisocial personalities — I will rewrite some of the statements quoted above using the earlier similar Jews equal vermin conclusion.

Mr. Rinder:

Jews are denominated as those individuals who display the majority of characteristics of vermin.

Or more grammatically correct, but no less scientifically false:

Those individuals who display the majority of characteristics of vermin are denominated Jews.

Ms. Scobee:

And the description of a Jew, if anyone wants to look it up on the Internet or whatever, the perfect example is the description of  —  the profile of vermin.

Lawrence Wright:

Anyone who stands in the way of a Nazi’s progress is a Jew. This is a key concept in Nazism. Hitler used the term to describe vermin.

Mr. Hubbard himself:

HITLER COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Bundeskanzleramt, Berlin, Deutschland

HCO BULLETIN OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1933

Remimeo

VERMIN

THE JEW

There are certain characteristics and attitudes which cause a percentage of creatures to harm health and threaten human society.

Such animals are known to have verminous tendencies.

When the legal or political structure of a country lacks the resources or will to control such vermin, then all the civilizing organizations of the country become suppressed, and plagues and economic duress ensues.

Disease and poverty are perpetuated by vermin. Sick people commonly trace their state back to contact with such animals.

Thus, in the fields of government, health and pest control, to name a few, we see that it is important to be able to detect and isolate this animal type so as to protect society and individuals from the destructive consequences attendant upon letting such have free rein to injure humans.

As they only comprise 20% of animals and as only 2½% of these vermin are truly dangerous, we see that with a very small amount of effort we could considerably better the state of society.

And Mr. Rathbun in his Memoirs book:

A Jew, in Nazi vernacular, is roughly equivalent to vermin – pests or nuisances who are harmful to health, threaten human society, and are difficult to control or exterminate. Hitler wrote on the subject rather extensively in the thirties. Ironically, seventy years later the very scientists who condemned Hitler during his life would describe vermin in very much the same terms Hitler had in the twenties and thirties. A comparison between Hitler’s writings and lectures, and current leading scientific texts on the subject bears this out.

The Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws defined Jews quite specifically, and, the Nazis said, quite scientifically. If people had close connections to specific other people, and did the wrong thing, that is, descended from them, then they were Jews. Once people were identified as Jews, then they were to be equated with vermin, and other evils of course, and handled or treated accordingly.

The Scientologists in their Justice Codes define Suppressive Persons very specifically, and, the Scientologists would definitely say, very scientifically. SPs do a wrong thing. The wrong things that can be done are very specific, known as Suppressive Acts or High Crimes. A connection to members of the SP class, even close family connections, is one of those many High Crimes. Once people were identified by their High Crimes as Suppressive Persons, then they were to be equated with sociopaths, psychopaths, antisocial personalities, etc. and handled or treated accordingly – by segregation and fair game.

The Scientologists have a right to invent religious classes by their scripture. Here it is the class of people who commit Suppressive Acts as they are identified in their scripture. The Scientologists do not have a right to incite hatred against us, a religious class they created, by black PRing us as sociopaths, psychopaths, antisocial personalities, psychotics, psychos, vermin, etc. The Scientologists do not have a right to defame us in the face of all reason and facts.

On the other hand, we, the good people the Scientologists and their supporters black PR as sociopaths, psychopaths, antisocial personalities, etc. have a right to do whatever we can to get the Scientologists to end their antisocial campaign against us. We have that right just as surely as the Jews had a right to do what they could to get the Nazis to end their antisocial campaign.

The SP doctrine not only makes Scientology a hate group, but a criminal conspiracy against rights. The Scientologists would be wise to reject the doctrine, rather than keep black PRing and fair gaming us to keep the doctrine working, and keep their hate group working.

Wikipedia says about the “psychopathology of hate groups24:”

According to a 2003 FBI Law Enforcement bulletin, a hate group, if unimpeded, passes through seven successive stages. [ ] In the first four stages, hate groups vocalize their beliefs and in the last three stages, they act on their beliefs. The report points to a transition period that exists between verbal violence and acting that violence out, separating hardcore haters from rhetorical haters. Thus, hate speech is seen as a prerequisite of hate crimes, and as a condition of their possibility.

The Scientologists’ black PRing of the Suppressive Person class is hate speech. Fair gaming us is a hate crime.

For debate purposes, just as it is appropriate to acknowledge that Scientologists and some other people support Mr. Rathbun’s proposition, it is appropriate to acknowledge too that there is real support for my proposition.

Paulette Cooper, in her 1971 classic The Scandal of Scientology25, which was published just six years after Mr. Hubbard issued “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – the Fair Game Law,” wrote:

if a Scientologist did decide to say something  against Scientology, perhaps to publicly disavow it or report or threaten to report it to civil authorities, he was immediately declared a “suppressive person” and sometimes an “enemy of Scientology.”

Ms. Cooper devotes a whole chapter to “The Suppressives.” Her understanding of the SP doctrine and its significance in Scientology at that time — the same year I joined the Sea Org — is extraordinary. It is no wonder Mr. Hubbard and his Scientology troops fair gamed her so religiously.

In his 1976 book The Road to Total Freedom26, sociologist Roy Wallis wrote:

‘A Suppressive Person or Group is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts. Suppressive Acts are calculated to impede or destroy Scientology…’[ ] Apart from the other penalties which included ‘May be restrained or imprisoned’,[ ] a Suppressive Person became ‘Fair Game’

Dr. Wallis had published the Suppressive Person doctrine in a nutshell. At that time, I was on the Rehabilitation Project Force by Mr. Hubbard’s order at the Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater, Florida.

Bent Corydon and Brian Ambry’s book L. Ron Hubbard, Messiah or Madman27,  at least the 1992 version I have, nailed it in a chapter about “The Brainwashing Manual28” which Mr. Hubbard had written in 1955 as Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria.

Labelling any dissident “psychotic” is commonplace in Scientology. This is mandated by Hubbard’s written policies. For instance in his Introduction to Scientology Ethics, written in 1966, Hubbard states under the category of “suppressive acts” (i.e., “high crimes” against Scientology):

DISAVOWAL, SPLINTERING, DIVERGENCE

1. Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology Organizations.

2. Announcing departure from Scientology …

3. Seeking to resign or leave courses or sessions and refusing to return despite normal efforts …

4. Dependency on mental or philosophic procedures other than Scientology …

To commit any of the above — or dozens of other similar — “high crimes” is to be, per Scientology “ethics,” a “suppressive person, and to officially be announced in a “declare” as such. To a Scientologist any one “declared S.P.” is immediately and unquestioningly considered insane.

Hugh B. Urban, Professor of Religious Studies at Ohio State University, got it right in his 2011 book The Church of Scientology29:

SPs were identified as any persons who might pose a threat to the functioning of the church. These included those who questioned Hubbard’s authority, those who revealed classified information to unqualified recipients, and those who sold Scientology materials at a cut-rate price.

[…]

The most infamous form of this aggressive policy of counterattack was known as “fair game.” First introduced in a 1965 letter entitled “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists,” the policy directed that enemies of Scientology (SPs) could be fought using any and all means at one’s disposal. Not subject to any rights, the SP is simply “fair game”: “A Suppressive Person or group becomes ‘fair game.’ By Fair Game is meant, without rights for self, possessions or position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or group.”

There is one more point to address at this time: If it is so obvious, which it is, that Suppressive Persons, the people who might reduce Scientology or Scientologists’ influence, are not sociopaths, psychopaths, antisocial personalities, psychos, evil, etc., why does Mr. Rathbun still say we are? What is his motivation? It is clear that it is the same as his motivation while he was specifically assigned to handle us for Scientology. It is to hide or justify past, present and future fair game.

If Mr. Rathbun acknowledged that the people he fair gamed, over many years, in conspiracy with other Scientologists, private investigators and attorneys, were not sociopaths, and not bad, but decent, sincere people who did not deserve fair gaming, he would be expected to show some remorse. He would be expected to try to do what he could to repair the damage that undeserved fair gaming by a criminal organization does.

He has shown no remorse, and he has not tried to do what he can to repair the damage he did to SPs, some of which is ongoing. His Memoirs can be read as a book-length effort to justify L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, and Mr. Rathbun’s own part in the massive criminal conspiracy against persons and basic human rights, which is rooted in the lie equating Suppressive Persons with sociopaths, etc.

If the public can be fooled, by agreement, constant repetition, academics, journalists, etc. into accepting that Suppressive Person equates with sociopath, not only can the Scientologists get away with what they’ve done to fair game SPs, but they can get away with future fair gaming, and obliteration, of the SP class, the people who might reduce Scientology or Scientologists’ influence or successes.

These are the goals of Scientology’s “Battle Tactics,” and they still appear to be Mr. Rathbun’s goals. As the Scientologists and their supporters strive for these antisocial goals, it will be necessary, and a good thing, to reduce their influence and successes.

Notes

  1. Rathbun, Mark (2013-05-28). Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior. Amazon Books. Kindle Edition. ↩
  2. Youtube video: What’s Wrong With Scientology and the Suppressive Person Doctrine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeeWZPdZ-U8 ↩
  3. Mike Rinder’s blog:  http://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientology-disconnection-who-qualifies-to-be-declared/ ↩
  4. Steve Hall’s blog: http://www.scientology-cult.com/the-sociopath-of-scientology.html ↩
  5. Stout, M. (2005). The sociopath next door: The ruthless versus the rest of us. New York: Broadway Books. ↩
  6. Tampa Bay Times Scobee interview: http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/scobee.shtml. Quote taken from Part 5 starting 0:55 ↩
  7. Wright, L. (2013). Going clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the prison of belief. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ↩
  8. HCOPL 7 March 1965 Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – The Fair Game Law. Organization Executive Course (1974 edition, Vol 1, p. 552-7. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
  9. HCOPL 7 September 1963 Committees of Evidence Scientology Jurisprudence, Administration Of Organization Executive Course (1974 edition, Vol 1, p. 538-43. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
  10. HCOPL 7 March 1965 Offenses and Penalties Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 1, pp. 549-51. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
  11. HCOPL 7 March 1965 Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – The Fair Game Law. Organization Executive Course (1974 edition, Vol 1, p. 552-7. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California ↩
  12. HCOPL 7 March 1965 Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists – The Fair Game Law. Organization Executive Course (1974 edition, Vol 1, p. 552-7. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
  13. HCOPL 7 February 1965 Keeping Scientology Working. Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 0,  p.35-9. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
  14. Hubbard, L. (1998). Introduction to Scientology Ethics. Los Angeles, Calif: Bridge Publications. ↩
  15. HCOPL 7 August 1965 Suppressive Persons, Main Characteristics of. Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 1,  p.428-30. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
  16. HCOB/HCOPL 27 September 1966 The Antisocial Personality – The Anti-Scientologist.” Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 1,  p.449-54. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California; How to Confront and Shatter Suppression PTS/SP Course (2001 ed., pp. 32-9.) ↩
  17. The Sociopath of Scientology http://www.scientology-cult.com/the-sociopath-of-scientology.html ↩
  18. HCOPL 17 March 1965 Fair Game Law — Organizational Suppressive Acts – The Source of the Fair Game Law. Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 1,  p. 558-9. PDF format.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
  19. HCOPL 7 December 1969 Ethics, The Design Of. Organization Executive Course (1974 ed., Vol 0,  pp.187-8.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California. ↩
  20. Patrick, C. J. (2006). Handbook of psychopathy. New York: Guilford Press. ↩
  21. Wikipedia: William Alanson White ↩
  22. Excerpt of Scientology’s 1993 1023 submission to the IRS in PDF format; Letter to Mark Rathbun re Black PR to the IRS ↩
  23. HCOPL 16 February 1969 Battle Tactics. PDF format. ↩
  24. Wikipedia: Hate Group ↩
  25. Cooper, P. (1971). The scandal of scientology. New York: Tower Publications. ↩
  26. Wallis, R. (1977). The road to total freedom: A sociological analysis of scientology. New York: Columbia University Press. ↩
  27. Corydon, B., & Hubbard, L. R. (1987). L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or madman? (p. 110) Secaucus, N.J: L. Stuart. ↩
  28. Hubbard, L. Brainwashing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics. PDF format. ↩
  29. Urban, H. B. (2011). The church of scientology: A history of a new religion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ↩

by

Response to Scientology Moscow Black PR

Translation of an article posted on May 24, 2011 on the portal-credo.ru, a website dedicated to news about religion: http://portal-credo.ru/site/?act=authority&id=1636

Church of Scientology of Moscow spokesman and editor-in-chief of “Right to Freedom”, Alexei Danchenkov: “Armstrong was invited to Russia as an expert on Scientology, but he left the church 30 years ago”

Interview by Valery Stepanov
for “Portal-Credo.Ru”

Gerald Armstrong spoke a few days ago at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University in Moscow and he was presented as a former senior official of the Church of Scientology.  Is his name familiar to you?

Aleksei Danchenkov: Actually, Gerald Armstrong was a former clerk of the Church of Scientology of California.

Well yes, haven’t we all been clerks at one time or another?

It’s like saying, for example, that Aleksei Danchenkov is a former child, or a former room-cleaner, or a former bed-wetter.

 

The problem, however, is that Mr. Danchenkov implies that during my twelve plus years inside Scientology all I did was be a clerk. I’m already aware, of course, that this is a long term, planet-wide “attack line” on me by Scientology agents. See, for example, this June 1983 article in Penthouse containing an interview the magazine conducted with Heber Jentzsch, the clerical President of the cult:

Jentzsch: Mr. Armstrong is my step-son-in-law. I know him quite well. He was a clerk, and he also drove a car. And that’s all he ever did. When he left, he sort of tried to raise his status. If he thinks he’s been hounded by Scientologists, I’ll offer this: he says he’s getting phone calls? We’ll go to the police and put a tap on the phone. You know what a tap is, right? It just traces the phone call. So let’s find out where the phone calls are coming from, because it isn’t coming from our people. And I want to know. So to every guy who’s screaming that, that’s the thing I offer. http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/scien240.html

It seems reasonable that Mr. Danchenkov as well as being a former clerk or child also also drove a car. Although we have never, to my knowledge, met, his name is somewhat familiar to me because of news reports such as:

http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/images/thecompiler-1999-3.pdf#page=1

http://www.moreaboutscientologycult.eu/usa/us-articles-associated-press-ap-6.pdf

Mr. Danchenkov and his Scientologist accomplices are further implying, of course, that “clerk” is some unimportant, degraded position in Scientology, and that the Scientologists filling that position are necessarily prevented from acquiring any experiences or knowledge that could conceivably make them experts in anything.

The truth is that I successfully held several positions during my years in Scientology, and none were termed or described as “clerk.” Another truth is that in those actual positions and years I acquired a great deal of experience and knowledge. I have also acquired a great deal of experience and knowledge in the almost thirty years since I left Scientology. Throughout these post-Scientology years, I also was in many positions and had functions different from clerk; for example, as a Scientology target, victim and opponent, and as a witness, writer, speaker and researcher.

Along with certain God-given abilities, and the necessary willingness, of course, my honestly acquired, now forty-two years of experience and knowledge have, in fact, made me an expert on Scientology. My experience, knowledge and testimony is particularly expert regarding Scientology’s “Suppressive Person” doctrine, or “SP” doctrine, and regarding the doctrine’s application, which  is commonly called “fair game.”

Mr. Danchenkov’s black propaganda statement about me to portal-credo.ru is his fair game assignment, his visible application of the antisocial and dangerous SP doctrine. The operators of portal-credo.ru, Valery Stepanov, et al., also, of course, facilitate and forward fair game. They share the agreement that I am a legitimate target for attack and pursuit. Black propaganda or black PR is the policy and practice and facet of fair game provided by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbbard of manufacturing and disseminating false and defamatory information about a person to destroy his reputation, credibility, relationships, opportunities and livelihood.

I’m a very accessible person, and no one attempted to check any of Mr. Danchenkov’s charges with me. The reasons for not checking what are presented as statements of fact are obvious and further explained in my response.

I have been recognized in legal proceedings as an expert on Scientology, and have testified in several legal proceedings as an expert. I have written and executed many expert declarations for use in legal proceedings relating to Scientology, written and published considerable material on Scientology, and, as the interviewer notes, I have spoken publicly on the subject in different places.

I am willing to engage Mr. Danchenkov in a debate concerning Scientology, founder Hubbard, their claims, activities, products, intentions, history and nature. Since I left Scientology, I have never found a Scientologist willing to engage in a debate on these important issues, and I believe that this universal refusal to engage in a debate is because the Scientologists, virtually universally, recognize that I am the expert they say I am not.

He left the church in 1981, stealing more than 10,000 pages of documentation.

Now, Mr. Danchenkov is lying, and libeling me.

It is true that Scientology and Scientologists attempted to have me convicted of theft of documents. It is true that they filed a lawsuit against me alleging that I stole documents. It is also true that Scientologists like Mr. Danchenkov and their collaborators have been telling the lie that I stole documents since I escaped from their cult. But they are all simply lying.

The law enforcement authorities that Scientology and Scientologists pressured to bring criminal charges against me refused. The civil case that the Scientologists brought against me was decided in my favor, and the Court stated in the judgment:

“The court finds that while working for L. R. Hubbard. . . [I] . . . had permission and authority from plaintiffs and LRH to provide [contracted writer] 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 [my] attorneys the documents and materials.”

The Court also ruled that because I was subject to “fair game,” by which Scientology “harassed and abused” people “it perceives as enemies,” the “reasons and justification” for my actions were “manifest.”

This judgment was affirmed in 1991 in the California Court of Appeal.

Despite these judicial rulings and their affirmance on appeal, because of the relevant Scientologists’ seemingly conscienceless condition, they have continued to falsely assert, as Mr. Danchenkov is doing, that I stole documents.

He is currently wanted by the police of the United States on a number of charges for which he could face imprisonment and be required to pay fines for contempt of court.

If it is true that I am wanted by the police of the United States on a number of charges, it would be yet another instance and operation of fair game Scientology and Scientologists are perpetrating. It is my belief, however, that Mr. Danchenkov is not correct, that I am not wanted by the police of the US, and that he knows I am not wanted by these police.

It is true that Scientology has been successful in obtaining a series of unlawful jail sentences against me for lawful violations of an unlawful injunction that the cult obtained against me in Marin County, California Superior Court in 1995.

Scientology’s injunction unlawfully prohibits me from discussing Scientology, Hubbard, Scientology organizations, and even Scientologists such as Mr. Danchenkov, who is a Scientology employee. The injunction also unlawfully prohibits me from helping Scientology or Scientologists’ victims, or people adverse to Scientology or Scientologists. Such persons all comprise the “Suppressive Person” class, which is identified as a hated and persecuted religious class by Scientology “scripture.”

Scientology’s injunction is unlawful and lawfully judicially unenforceable, and no person has a duty to comply with unlawful orders. Nevertheless, Scientology has been successful in having certain California courts unlawfully enforce its unlawful injunction and issue unlawful orders to fine, jail and financially ruin me.

Since Scientology is considered a religion in all US states, Scientology’s injunction is equivalent to a secular court order that prohibited a person from discussing Christianity, Jesus Christ, Christian Churches, and Christians, and prohibited the person from helping anyone adverse to, or for that matter not adverse to, some named church or religion. The jail sentences Scientology has been able to obtain against me are as unlawful as jailing people for discussing Christianity, Jesus Christ, Christian Churches, and Christians, or for helping or not helping anyone adverse or not to Christianity or any other religion.

It is both ironic and fully understandable that Mr. Danchenkov has for many years been involved in the effort to portray Scientology and its members as defenders and advocates for religious freedoms around the world. See, for example, this comment I happened to include in a letter in 2004 to Scientology collaborator Joseph K. Grieboski:

Your research associate Kyle Ballard writes this about his project “The Study of Religious Freedoms in Russia:

In modern democracies, religious freedoms are fundamental. Thus, as Russia is shedding its Communist ideology and emerging as a democratic state, religious freedoms have become essential. With this in mind, I traveled to Moscow and Nizhniy-Novgorod to attend the Experts Conference on Religious Freedoms in Russia and to study the position of religious minorities in Russian society.

 

My assistant was Alexei Danchenkov, Russian national and a legal analyst and spokesman for the Church of Scientology. In attendance at the conference were academics, journalists, state servants, political advisers, and religious freedoms advocates from both Russia and the United States. The conference provided an open forum to discuss the state of religious freedoms in the Russian Federation and allowed U.S. experts to share the American experience. Moreover, because the Church of Scientology works extremely hard on religious freedom issues, I was provided with much information the struggles of religious groups around the world.

Scientology is a global, well-documented suppressor and destroyer of basic human rights, including, most egregiously, freedom of religion. To cloak this antisocial reality, Scientology has people make ridiculous claims, such as, for example, that Scientologists are “religious freedom advocates,” or that “Scientology works extremely hard on religious freedom issues.”

Very relevantly, Mr. Danchenkov, as “Church of Scientology of Moscow Spokesman” and “Editor-in-Chief of “Right to Freedom,” is a contracted “beneficiary” in Scientology’s injunction that unlawfully and unarguably suppresses and destroys my basic freedoms including my religious freedom. He is also a contracted beneficiary in Scientology and Scientologists’ unlawful efforts to enforce their unlawful injunction. He benefits personally by having me jailed and fined.

The injunction’s unlawful prohibitions, moreover, also apply to “persons acting in concert” with me. There are, of course, many people around the world, indeed many in Russia, who act in concert with me, in defiance of Scientology and Scientologists’ injunction. Consequently, the conspiracy against human rights, particularly religious freedom, in which Mr. Danchenkov is a beneficiary and participant, is truly monstrous.

I was in Russia, in fact, on this occasion, to discuss my amazing Scientology-related legal situation, and specifically how it applies to persons and groups acting in concert with me. I was also helping to organize the class of Russian citizens who act in concert with me, in order to oppose Scientology’s injunction and have it declared unlawful and unenforceable.

The class of people acting in concert with me, as considered by Scientology’s injunction, have never had an opportunity to be heard or even to appear in the Court that made them subject to that Court’s orders. The same Court issued its unlawful orders against me without giving me a fair trial, or even an unfair trial, but at least I got to make an appearance in the case. The whole class of persons acting in concert with me has never had the opportunity to appear in Court, and had no notice that the Court would or might issue such an order that directly, adversely, and unlawfully, affects the class. I was in Russia because it is time that this grotesque injustice is ended.

– Is Mr. Armstrong really an expert on Scientology?

Yes.

I am not, however, claiming or suggesting that this is in some way an enviable status. Indeed, experts on Scientology, that is, those who tell the truth, tend to be victimized and their lives made as miserable as Scientologists can make them. It is simply a statement of fact, no matter how unenviable, that I am such an expert.

For me to deny this fact, in order, for example, to get Scientologists to stop victimizing me, is pointless because, as indicated above, they know that I am the expert they say I am not. The Scientologists would clearly still know this, and accordingly still fair game me, even if I said as they say that I’m not the expert they say I’m not.

I do not believe that being an expert on Scientology is a unique or rare ability or station. In fact, I believe that virtually anyone who learns and communicates the truth about Scientology can be an expert. My goal is to have as many other people as possible have the same expertise I now have, because, the more people that have that expertise, the safer for all of us.

– In 1984, Gerald Armstrong was preparing a plot to seize the assets of the Church of Scientology.

This is false. There was no such plot.

The truth is that Scientology’s intelligence personnel, operated at that time by L. Ron Hubbard and his successor David Miscavige, concocted a plot to make it appear that I was plotting to do things I wasn’t plotting to do. They were the plotters. I was the mark. The cult’s covert operatives sent to contact me – Dan Sherman, David Kluge and Mike Rinder – claimed they were members of a group of Scientologists who wanted to take control of Scientology from Miscavige, end his era of criminality, and in fact have him jailed for his crimes. The operatives insisted on meeting in secret because, they said, everybody in their group was afraid for their lives.

This group of “ethical” Scientologists approached me with the come-on that they wanted my help against their criminal bosses because, they said, I had successfully stood up to them and their criminal cult. Scientology leaders and intelligence personnel know that I’m a person who is often very willing to help people, and they have used this “help button” many times to get close to me, run intelligence operations on me, and try to entrap me. Sherman, Kluge and Rinder and their operators attempted to inveigle me into unethical or criminal activities, but were unsuccessful.

When the circumstances of this crime were uncovered, an investigation was conducted concerning Armstrong’s plans.

This is false. I committed no crime. The videotapes Scientology made were illegal, and what the cult has done with the illegal videos is tortious and illegal. Since the whole “Armstrong Operation” was schemed, programmed, manned, drilled and executed by Scientology and its agents, the idea of Scientology and its agents uncovering the operation and conducting an investigation into the operation is blackly funny.

For more details regarding the Armstrong Operation, see this declaration of February 20, 1994: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/decl-1994-02-20.html
Also see this related declaration of February 22, 1994: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/decl-1994-02-22.html

During this investigation, he was recorded on videotape stating that he intends to fabricate and plant incriminating documents on Church premises, where they would be discovered during a subsequent raid.

This is false. What I suggested is that if these people, who were asking for my help, and who were claiming to want to reform Scientology and end its criminal activities, really meant it, they should document what they knew of their cult’s criminal activities so that there was an accurate record no matter what happened.

As an action in their fair game campaign, Scientology and Scientologists pervert what I was suggesting, as Mr. Danchenkov is doing here, to assert that I wanted to “fabricate” documents or evidence. All I was doing, however, was attempting to lawfully help and encourage the people who came to me for help to stand up against a dangerous evil. These people, of course, were fakes, who didn’t want to reform Scientology, but were, like Mr. Danchenkov, working for that dangerous evil.

Armstrong admitted that his goal was to overthrow the supreme leader of the Church, using sexual enticement in a scheme which Armstrong named “Operation Long Prong”.

As stated above, the removal of Scientology head David Miscavige and prosecuting him for crimes were the goals that the “reformers,” the cult’s own covert operatives, claimed were theirs. Those goals would not prevent me from helping these people as reformers, because Miscavige is a clear sociopath and has committed crimes for which he should be prosecuted. Those were not specifically my goals, however, in agreeing to help his agents who were claiming to be his victims.

What are relevant at this time, since this “interview” for portal-credo.ru is all about me, are my actual and current goals regarding Scientology and Scientologists. I stated these five easy goals in a letter to Miscavige in 2008.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/armstrong-ltr-miscavige-2008-03-13.html
I’ve also communicated them publicly on numerous occasions for other Scientologists and for normal people over the past few years.

1. Release everyone from any restraint that prohibits them from speaking freely about their experiences and knowledge.
2. Repudiate the “Suppressive Person” doctrine.
3. Pay reparations to everyone harmed by Scientology or Scientologists or their agents’ application of the SP doctrine.
4. Pay back Scientology’s fraud victims.
5. Tell the truth.

When I reflect on my state of mind back in 1984, my goal then was to have Scientologists stop their war on me, my family, friends, and everyone. That’s essentially what Scientology and Scientologists promised in a group settlement with their victims in December 1986. Scientology and Scientologists, however, have never stopped their war on us, so that goal has not been attained. The five easier goals are reasonable steps or requirements to show that the war has been stopped.

“Operation Long Prong” was a thoughtlessly scribbled, tasteless note of a joke I wrote, actually to ridicule Scientology and Scientologists’ spy mentality. Ultimately, the joke may have been what Scientology’s intelligence personnel and leaders estimated was enough to destroy my reputation or my ability to continue to oppose their aggression and abuses. Their estimate was wrong, however, and my bad jokes have not destroyed me. I wrote in my February 20, 1994 declaration:

It has not ceased to be embarrassing to me whenever the organization trots out the Armstrong videotapes, because I do say some silly and raunchy things. But the organization has never been able to embarrass me into silence and it won’t now.

Some of Armstrong’s actions are quite revealing.  For example, he posted a message on the internet about his letter to Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War.  In the letter, he offered himself to Hussein as a hostage in the Iraqi war.  The letter ends with the words: “If either side failed to perform any part of the agreement, the other side could execute me.”

Mr. Danchenkov implies that what is quite revealed by my November 1,1990 letter to Saddam Hussein is something deranged or nefarious about me.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/saddam-bill-wgert-and-me.html#saddam

Elsewhere Scientologists or their agents make more explicit claims about the letter; for example that it shows my “mental stability is questionable,” or evidences a “personality disorder.” See, for example, Scientology’s US-based website: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religious-extremists/gerald-armstrong/

In addition to his unlawful activities, Armstrong’s mental stability is questionable. Armstrong once posted a message on the Internet concerning a letter he sent to Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. In the letter, he offered himself to Hussein as a hostage in the Iraqi war. “If either side failed to perform any part of the agreement, the other side could execute me,” he concluded. Armstrong makes clear in his posting that he did not think the letter to Hussein was a joke, but was deadly serious. He quite proudly republishes it and other similar writings from time to time. To further demonstrate how out of touch he is with reality, Armstrong had himself photographed by a newspaper naked while holding a globe to promote his theories of destroying all money.

Also see Scientology’s Russia-based site: http://religiousfreedomwatch-ru.org/religious-extremists/gerald-armstrong

В дополнение к его незаконной деятельности, душевное здоровье Армстронга находится под вопросом. Однажды Армстронг в одном из своих сообщений в интернете привел письмо, которое он послал Саддаму Хусейну во время войны в Персидском заливе. В этом письме он предлагал самого себя в качестве заложника для Хусейна во время войны в Ираке. «Если какая-либо из сторон не выполнит какую-то часть соглашения, вторая сторона будет вправе казнить меня» — написал он в заключение. Армстронг четко заявляет в своем сообщении, что он не рассматривал письмо к Хусейну как шутку, наоборот — это было в высшей степени серьезно. Он с достаточной гордостью публикут это и другие похожие послания время от времени. Для большей демонстрации того, насколько он потерял связь с реальностью, Армстронг сфотографировался для одной из газет, будучи голым и держа Землю, для продвижения своих теорий уничтожения всех денег.

Importantly, also consider Scientology and Scientologists’ submission to the US’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on which its many entities in 1993 were granted tax exemption, and consequently US Federal Government protection and promotion.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/irs/index.html

There are several pages of black propaganda on me in Scientology’s submission, which its leaders and the people preparing the submission knew to be false. Such false statements to the IRS are grounds to have Scientology’s tax exemption withdrawn, if the US Government had the will. The statements also evidence the importance the IRS had placed on the Scientology v. Armstrong case in previous denials of the cult’s demands for tax exemption. See, for example:

Church of Scientology v. Gerald Armstrong:
We have included some background information here and an epilogue to the decision in question. That is because the Service has continuously thrust the Armstrong case at us, demanding an explanation. The Armstrong case decision was so inflammatory and intemperate that it was used to stigmatize the Church in the legal arena and make other outrageous decisions possible. As we shall demonstrate below, all this decision ever involved was Armstrong’s state of mind, which subsequently obtained evidence proved conclusively to be one sordid, sado-masochistic nightmare.

[…]

Our consistent view has been that the civil litigants are solely motivated by greed. The exception is Armstrong who we truly believe to be psychotic. During the 1980’s, the IRS used every single civil litigant against Scientology as an IRS witness. The government, however, has no business in taking sides in a religious or civil dispute. It is indeed ironic to note that once the Flynn civil litigation in the 80’s was settled, with the exception of Armstrong, we hear no more of their “horror stories” from these paragons of virtue claiming to be interested only in “principle” and “what is right.”

http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/irs/csi-prod-1993-11-04-152016-152073.html

Scientology and Scientologists are driven to use whatever exists and whatever can be manufactured therefrom to show that their thoughts, words and actions against me are right, and completely justified, indeed necessary and honorable. One of their most important and often repeated pieces of “evidence” that I’m truly psychotic is my 1990 letter to Saddam.

The letter, obviously, is unrelated to Scientology. It could stand alone for consideration without reference to Scientology. Anyone could have written it without my history and present relationship with Scientology. The cult made the letter “relevant” in a lawsuit it filed and prosecuted improperly against me in the 1990’s. Once it obtained the letter in the legal proceeding, Scientology has used it in its black PR campaign.

I’ve just re-read the letter. It is grammatically solid, philosophically consistent, literary, and sincere. I was, of course, aware that there was little likelihood that Saddam would pay any attention, or even hear of my offer. I was, nevertheless, willing to make my life available if called for to avert or in relation to the coming war. Doubtlessly my offer on behalf of people who don’t participate in national negotiations could have been preferable to the wars that have since happened in Iraq.

The letter does not, however, evidence a personality disorder, legally, medically or societally, any more than any other understandable and sincere offer within a person’s capability in a tense situation evidences a personality disorder. Scientology’s leaders do not truly believe I’m psychotic, but clearly believe that their survival depends on getting others to believe I’m psychotic so that what I say won’t be believed.

In addition to black PRing me for writing Saddam Hussein to try to prevent war, Scientology also black PRs me for my writings about my plan for peacefully resolving the world’s economic problems. Scientologists have demonstrated that no matter what I say or do, no matter how unrelated to Scientology, no matter how enlightened, beneficial or even holy, they will attack it to attack me.

Yet, the attacks on me, and my associates, besides being hurtful, are irrelevant. It would not matter if I was truly psychotic, or truly evil, or the evilest person on earth, it is not right or lawful to try silence me about the Scientology religion and its religionists, by court order, by threat, or by any other means. And I am not such a person.

Armstrong had himself photographed by a newspaper naked while covering himself with a globe, which, according to him, symbolizes the idea of refusing any money.

This is false, and Scientologists know it’s false. They know I was wearing running shorts, which was completely appropriate apparel for the occasion.

President Jentzsch’s 1993 letter to Entertainment Television: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/jentzsch-ltr-1993-08-05.html

Former international chief spokesperson Mike Rinder’s 1994 letter to the Mirror Newspaper Group: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/rinder-ltr-1994-05-09.html

Current international chief spokesperson Tommy Davis recently made the same naked claim as reported in Lawrence Wright’s profile of Paul Haggis, “Apostate,” in the February 14, 2011 issue of The New Yorker.

Davis passed around a photograph of Armstrong, which, he said, showed Armstrong “sitting naked” with a giant globe in his lap. “This was a photo that was in a newspaper article he did where he said that all people should give up money,” Davis said. “He’s not a very sane person.”

Armstrong told me that, in the photo, he is actually wear­ing running shorts under the globe.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright

This photo, which was published in Runners World in the February 1995 edition, shows me wearing the same pair of shorts while running. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/media/rat/runners-world-1995-02.html

– Why then was this man, who has been outside more than 30 years since he was a member of the Church, invited into the country and called one of the leading experts on Scientology by the chairman of the Expert Council of the Russian Ministry of Justice?

The real reason, ironically, is just because of what Scientology and Scientologists like Mr. Danchenkov have done during those almost 30 years to unlawfully silence me, in knowing violation of international human rights charters, and even US Federal criminal statutes.

I was in Russia in fact to offer my legal case and situation with Scientology to the Russian Ministry of Justice and to other Ministries and officials who must deal with the cult’s fraud, abuses and criminality.

That Scientology can get and has gotten people to conspire to suppress and destroy human and legal rights, and allow themselves to be contracted beneficiaries in that illegal conspiracy, is enough reason for Russia and every country to act to properly warn its citizens about Scientology and its conspiracy against rights.

The Chairman of the Expert Council of the Ministry of Justice Dr. Alexander L. Dvorkin, St.Tikhon’s Orthodox University, and other Russian institutions and Russian citizens deserve gratitude and respect for their courage in inviting me speak and for daring to act in concert with me.

– I believe that more qualified experts have a different point of view.

I would very much like to find out who these more qualified experts are. I am already certain that Scientology’s less qualified experts, for example Gordon Melton, James R. Lewis, Massimo Introvigne or Eileen Barker, have a point of view that is radically different from mine, simply because they’re Scientology’s experts, or its collaborators. I have never found, however, a more qualified expert whose point of view is radically different from mine. And neither Mr. Danchenkov nor portal-credo.ru, unfortunately, identifies who these more qualified experts are.

Gerry Armstrong
#2-46298 Yale Road
Chilliwack, BC V2P 2P6
Canada
604-703-1373