Gerry Talks...

You are here: Home / Archives for Mike Rinder

Mike Rinder

by

Blowing the lid off the problem with Clearwater

Hallo Markus:

Grüße aus dem Wack!

Someone just sent me to a couple of comments you made last December on Mike Rinder’s blog. You were responding to one of his articles that criticized the Scientologists comparing Leah Remini and the Aftermath production to the lie-spreading and discrimination-fomenting of the German Nazis in the 1930’s.  https://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientology-and-nazi-germany/

Here are your first comment, Rinder’s reply to you, and your second comment:

Markus Thoess says

December 13, 2018 at 3:00 am

Mike, I have serious problems with the Nazi topic.

More than one time I have asked you, Debbie Cook or Tom De Vocht to expose how the COS and OSA infiltrated the Clearwater GOV and the CW Police Department.
Thus resulted in an environment today where in a US City a Police is unable to investigate in Suicide or Homicide cases without having OSA Sara Heller among them.
There are numerous death cases starting from Lisa MC Person until today.

Many of them are not professional investigated or turned down by the Church.

I personally think, that is EXACTLY the same situation that Adolf Hitler and the SA had, before they came to power in 1933. A situation where they are ABOVE the law.
You yourself have orchestrated that. Tom had, Debbie had, Peter Mansell and many others before him had too.

Only to name the case of Kyle Brennan, OT 8 Biggi Reichert, Michael Bamme or OT 5 Evgheni Zharkin and you know what, only a couple of weeks ago the third German, Sea Org Member Sabine L. came from Flag, stayed a couple of days at the exact same village where Biggi Reichert had her last days at OT 8` Gloria XX. and tried to commit suicide by cutting her veins.

I personally think that as long as this happens again and again, without having a working law system in a Florida City with the name of Clearwater, it is only cheap to broadcast about people who have been financially ruined by a cult that they want to go to.

It is even more in the behavior of people of the Nazi regime to silence, to NOT Speak or to hide instead of exposing how the “church” reached that status.

Mike Rinder says

December 13, 2018 at 1:44 pm

Sorry those you think can confirm your belief are unable to help you. You seem to think the Clearwater Police are like the German police under Hitler and the SA? Sorry, that comparison is not much better than scientology’s. The problem in the US is the legal system and the preponderance of laws protecting organizations deemed religious. Remember, the FL STate’s Attorney and the CWPD/FDLE DID bring charges against scientology. The FBI did conduct an extensive investigation. It’s not someone influencing/threatening people in law enforcement that is the reason no prosecutions are successful. Believe me, I am pushing as hard as anyone can to solve this. You really believe that if I had information that would blow the lid off some conspiracy to obstruct justice that I would not have a) Told the FBI or b) shown it on The Aftermath or c) Failing that included it on my blog?

Tom, Debbie, me or anyone else don’t have information that fits your assumptions because that information does not exist.

Markus Thoess says

December 19, 2018 at 2:10 am

Mike, sorry that is hard to believe.

First of all, I don`t think there is something that should be compared to Hitler and the Nazis. Maybe ISIS.

During the amateurish investigations of the suicide/homicide cases in CW, at any time Sarah Heller and Peter Mansell for the last years where involved. Also it is for sure and proved that many of the CW police are working off duty on paycheck for the church. Detective Steven Bowling, who was in charge of the case of Kyle Brennan that was maybe the most annoying and amateurish done police investigation on a death case I ever heard about, was working off duty for the cos. None of the police officers I spoke to in 7 years of visiting CW would say something about what they know openly because they live there and do not want to have problems.

Do you think that is the way a jurisdiction unit should work?

As for your excuse that you all don’t know nothing about it: I also doubt that. First of all, if something like that is happening at FLAG OSA gets informed as the weekly OSA report says and we all know. It’s in the police documents that remedially they call OSA legal.

Now what will OSA do?

You know it. They will inform the FLAG leading structure and of course the headquarter.

So that least that is easy to see and to prove. Former police officer Ray Emmonds who died recently told me that if a Scientologist was found dead from a foreign country at CW, its body would be sticked in a plastic bag and being shipped back to its country. No real investigation took place.

Klaus Buechele who was your Deputy told me personally (among two witnesses in a restaurant Hubbard used to visit near CW) the same.

As for the FBI. I visited the FBI at Clearwater in 2014 and gave them documents and many information about the Biggi Reichert Case, about two other cases. None of them meant anything to them. They didn’t even know. They told me what they would have done, if the info I gave to them would have been given to them by either the CW police or the German Police ( reg. Biggi) at the time of the event.

As for the Brennan Case, the Zarkhin Case and the Michael Damme Case, all documents and interviews with people involved also proved, that the police did a lousy investigation just to get the folder closed.

The Brennan case would go even so far, that it whitewashed Denise Miscavige and her fellows from anything they had to do with it.

So in other words: If your son one day would be found dead at flag Mike, trust me you will not get any justice and you will also don`t see any proper investigation at all. And that is happening on US soil.

There are some additional things to consider regarding Rinder’s reply above to you and related matters.

Your challenge to him, it seems to me, is that (1) Rinder had a part in the orchestration of the situation or environment in Clearwater in which Scientologists appear to be above the law and Scientology suicide or homicide cases go uninvestigated or are botched; (2) you have previously asked Rinder to tell what he knows about all this; (3) he has refused over some years to do so; and (4) it is grimly reminiscent of people of the Nazi regime to silence others, to not speak up, or to hide, instead of exposing how the Scientologists reached the power or status they have in Clearwater.

I think you have legitimately challenged Rinder, and it is good that he be legitimately challenged. And I think he illegitimately discounts you and your challenge to him.

His intention, it is quite obvious, is to continue not telling what he knows. He had that same intention through all the years he was formally posted in OSA. He had that same intention when he was doing or making others do all the things he should now talk about in detail, the times, places, forms and events. To continue to get away with what he has gotten away with, he uses techniques he used while officially serving the Scientologists’ malign purposes.

His question to you about what you believe he would do if he had information that blew the lid off a conspiracy is in essence a scriptural “attack-the-attacker” handling. This is also known in scripture as a “double curve.” He is “handling” you with common Scientology “comm tech.”

He is also acting to “handle” other wogs who have, like you, observed, as I publicly have, that he has not told the truth about what he did and made others do to silence or destroy people while he was formally posted in OSA. Inherent in his “handling” is the assertion that if he had information that would blow the lid off some conspiracy to obstruct justice he would have told the FBI, or shown it on the Aftermath or included it on his blog.

His question to you about your belief is a logical fallacy called “appeal to ridicule.” He holds your legitimate challenge to him – or actually what he says you said — up to ridicule. He implies that your challenge is so ridiculous it only deserves ridicule. His PR assets go along with ridiculing his legitimate challengers. They do the same with me.

Rinder’s statement to you (which was made famous by your DMCA conflict with me) that I am “seeing things at this point” and I am “kind of a … kind of a … a bit of a fruitcake frankly,” is an appeal to ridicule.

His statement is also another fallacy called “poisoning the well.” This is where a person (Rinder) presents adverse and often irrelevant information (seeing things, fruitcake) about someone (me) to an audience (you) with the intention of pre-emptively discrediting everything that the victim of his poison (I) might say. Rinder and his assets have poisoned millions of wells over more than three decades just to pre-emptively discredit me. Poisoning wells is a standard Scientology religious sacrament that Scientologists drill and perform around the world.

Since what you actually said in your comment, Markus, is not what Rinder is ridiculing, he is also employing a “straw man fallacy,” ein Strohmann-Argument. He is ridiculing a straw man, which is also standard Scientology “comm tech” for handling or ridiculing, bullying or black PRing “critics” or challengers.

Rinder also uses a device that the formally posted Miscavige regimers use extensively called “Ignore Tech.” This is another common Scientology practice and policy for “degrading” legitimate challengers who present legitimate challenges. (These are different from illegitimate challengers presenting illegitimate challenges, which are yet another Scientology policy and practice.)

Employing ignore tech, the Scientologists postulate, as Rinder models, that the persons presenting legitimate challenges are so far beneath them, so devoid of any value, so inhuman, so bestial, the challengers can just be totally ignored. By pretending he has reduced a legitimate challenger’s image to beast level, Rinder can also get away with pretending that ignoring his challenger is justified. The more assets he can get to ignore a legitimate challenger, the more seemingly solid is Rinder’s pretense. From what you’ve said, it is apparent that he has been running ignore tech on you for some time.

Ignore tech and all sorts of semantic bullying techniques like strawmen and ridicule are weapons in the Scientologists’ arsenal for dealing with or “shattering” Suppressive Persons. The whole Scientology arsenal, however, right up to utter obliteration, comes out of the diabolic idea that the enemy, the SP is a beast, irredeemably evil, beyond reason, and therefore deserving of being ripped off, injured, tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed. After identifying their intended victim as a beast, the Scientologists go about degrading his or her image to beast level, so that everyone else, Scientologists and wogs, get that their victim is a beast deserving what beasts deserve.

While teaching that SPs deserve anything evil imaginable, the Scientologists also teach that SPs do not deserve even a word or a speck of credence. That is, SPs must not be given any trust, any belief, any acceptance, any kind word. You know Scientology Policy Directive 28 “Suppressive Act – Dealing with a Declared Suppressive Person:”

To maintain a line with, offer support to, or in any way grant credence to such a person indicates nothing more than agreement with that person’s destructive intentions and acts. Such dealings in fact act as a covert or overt attempt to undermine and negate the ethics and justice strengths of our ecclesiastical structure.1

Not in any way granting credence to someone is the essence of ignore tech. The persons Rinder applies this “tech” to are legitimate challengers bearing legitimate challenges. That is an equally apt description of the set of persons comprising the SPs, the persons Scientologists are prohibited from granting any credence to. SPs are commonly persons who simply tell the truth about their experiences with and knowledge of Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists. Telling the truth about these things is the basic legitimate challenge to the Scientologists and their colluders, like Rinder.

The ignore tech he has been running on me is epic. He runs it and has run it for years. He runs ignore tech despite the fact that for decades he didn’t ignore me at all but actively pursued and attacked me. He spent millions and hired a horde of antisocial characters to silence or destroy me. He has a horde of assets now, including “celebrities,” who validate his ignoring me and my legitimate challenges. His ignore-teching me is particularly poignant because I am his most gargantuan fair game victim. The ignore tech he is running on me is made doubly archetypal because I am also the person most obviously, persistently and patiently legitimately challenging him.

I have written reams presenting legitimate challenge after legitimate challenge to Rinder. I have communicated these challenges correctly, politely and understandably. The more he ignores legitimate challenges, the more reasons there are to legitimately challenge him. I have made a significant public record of his treatment of me over many years.2

I know very little of what Rinder did or had done in Clearwater during his years formally posted in OSA. I know a great deal, however, about what he did and made others do to silence or destroy me. I know a lot about what he did and made others do to silence or destroy the class of persons acting in concert with me, and similarly placed persons in the Suppressive Person religious class. I know about crimes he committed and had committed against me and other wogs, which led to the nazi-esque situation or condition you observe in Clearwater and elsewhere.

What Rinder is doing with you regarding his knowledge of what he did and had done in Clearwater is very similar to the way he “handled” me in his “Loyalist Operation” conspiracy in the 1980’s. He ran OSA in the US at that time, and was responsible, under cult head Miscavige for the op. The major targets were to criminally entrap me and ultimately criminally frame me.

He and his co-conspirators, who called themselves the “Loyalists,” contacted me in 1984 with claims that they were “reformers” who wanted to “reform” their cult and wanted my help. This was a step in what is called the “Armstrong Operation,” which the Scientologists initiated as soon as I left the cult. The Armstrong Op’s goal is my obliteration. 3

The “Loyalists” knew, they said, that the cult’s leaders were criminal. This was no surprise, because I already knew it in spades. So did relevant agencies and officials in the US Federal Government, so did courts, and so did pretty well everyone else. The “Loyalists” claimed they wanted to end the Miscavige regime’s lies, abuses and criminality, and have Miscavige, the criminal usurper of all things wise and wonderful, criminally prosecuted. Rinder and his co-conspirators claimed to be dedicated to opposing, exposing and reforming the cult. They claimed they wanted my help because I had just prevailed in court against the criminal Scientology leadership and had integrity.4

Rinder and his co-conspirators in their Loyalist Operation in 1984 claimed that they formed a new and effective opposition to the Miscavige regime, and, because of their knowledge of cult activities, they were poised to take down the regime in its then present form. When Rinder and his co-conspirators were making their clandestine and illegal videos of me meeting with him, however, he made a big production for the video of insisting that the “Loyalists” had no evidence of anything illegal being done. He was, of course, lying. He had all kinds of evidence of illegalities. And he was serving the Miscavigeites’ criminal purposes.

From my February 22, 1994 declaration:

Rinder, who had been represented to me as the Loyalists’ “best legal mind” couldn’t seem to get the distinction between allegations and proof in the complaint, and I was frustrated in our conversation because he seemed so dense. Now, of course, his denseness is fully understandable. He had to appear stupid and had to deny that there was any “proof” of the sort of allegations that would be made in a complaint because he knew he was being recorded on a videotape which was going to be used to attack, and if possible destroy me. Even what the organization has done to me alone (see, e.g., crimes listed by Judge Breckenridge and the list in paragraph 7 above) is enough for actual true-hearted reformers to bring a lawsuit to take control of the organization from the criminals now in charge. (Emphasis mine)

What Rinder is now doing is so like his first “Loyalist Op” (“Loyalist Op-1”) that his present agenda is known as “Loyalist Op Redux” or “Loyalist Op-2.” He and his current witting or unwitting PR assets again publicly portray Miscavige as a sociopath and a criminal. They again portray Rinder as the person poised with all the insider knowledge, the evidence and the legal acumen to take Miscavige and his regime down, and end the criminality. Rinder’s human assets present him as a leader of the “opposition” to Scientology, and they oppose persons like me, who legitimately challenge him or present legitimate challenges to his getting away with all the crimes and other evils he’s gotten away with.

Rinder proclaims himself, and is being proclaimed, as the preeminent challenger presenting the preeminent challenge now to the Miscavige regime. In reality, Rinder is willfully not doing what really could and should be done and really would challenge the conspirators running Scientology.

He titles his blog “Something Can Be Done About it,” which is a Hubbardian meme that means, in this context, doing precisely what he claimed he and his fellow Loyalists were doing about Scientology in 1984: ending the Miscavige regime’s lies, abuses and criminality. Yet he has studiously not done what really can be done about those evils.

While portraying themselves in their Aftermath series as dedicated to ending the Miscavige regime’s lies, abuses and criminality, and while getting all sorts of hopes up for truth and justice, Rinder and Leah Remini have communicated essentially that nothing can be done. Because of their positioning as the preeminent challengers to the Miscavige regime, their conclusion that nothing can be done about it is made to sound authoritative and definitive.

You brought up serious Clearwater issues, Markus: Scientology-related deaths, OSA interference with criminal investigations, the Scientologists being nazi-like above the law, and Rinder not telling what he knows. In answer, he writes: “The problem in the US is the legal system and the preponderance of laws protecting organizations deemed religious.” He is lying.

“The problem,” the thing or reason that prevents what should be done from being done about the Miscavige regime’s lies, abuses and criminality, in Clearwater or anywhere else in the US, is not the legal system or the laws that protect religious organizations. It is the Scientologists’ violations of existing US laws and the relevant law enforcers’ refusal to do anything about those violations of the law that is the problem. Rinder is blaming the law because the law-breakers get away with breaking it. By doing so, he is actually helping the law-breakers get away with it.

By blaming the failure to do anything effective about the Miscavige regime’s lies, abuses and criminality on the legal system and its laws, Rinder also generates an excuse for his refusal to tell what he knows. When he says it’s not someone influencing or threatening people in law enforcement that is the reason no prosecutions are successful, he knows this is untrue. The influence on local law enforcement is from above as well as from below. The threat is pervasive, and Rinder knows it. In fact he provided a glimpse of the threat’s extent on the Aftermath when he said about the Scientologists and their colluders’ criminal activities, “My God, they’ll do anything!” Anything includes murder. The colluders go much higher than the Clearwater Government or Police Department, and the colluders go profoundly low.

I am sure you saw the February 2, 2019 video of Clearwater Police Chief Daniel Slaughter responding to the Aftermath episode about his city.5

Slaughter says:

Being a recognized religious entity by the federal government, Scientology is entitled to contract for the same services as any other religious organization or business. The Police Department does not have the ability to stop providing extra-duty services to one religious organization without denying the same service to all federally recognized religious entities.

Slaughter was publicly acknowledging that to a noteworthy extent his department deferred to the US Federal Government for its treatment of the Scientologists. This was the Clearwater PD’s de facto position ever since the US Government granted tax exemption to the Scientologists in 1993. There is no doubt that influence is coming from the federal officials and agencies that granted the tax exemption, and thereafter have defended that decision, and defended, promoted or used Scientology and the Scientologists for the Federal Government’s purposes. The US Federal Government has a colossal interest in the Scientologists getting away with all sorts of crimes, human rights violations or other evils so as to not put in jeopardy the unlawful grant of tax exemption.

There is no doubt that the relevant federal officials dealing with the Scientologists in the effort to gain tax exemption and become a federally recognized religious entity knew that the Scientologists were continuously and seriously violating public policy. These federal officials knew that the Scientologists – the Miscavige regime, which included Rinder — were criminally framing legitimate challengers. These federal officials knew that such challengers were simply citizens who spoke up about the Scientologists’ lies, abuses and criminality. These officials knew that citizens doing just that, speaking up about lies, abuses and criminality, were essential for justice, for peace and for sane government. These officials knew that the Miscavige Scientologists were violating federal and state civil rights statutes.

These officials knew that in the Scientologists’ statements to relevant federal agencies, including to the IRS, the Scientologists were lying. The Scientologists were lying about their criminal and public policy-violating activities. Nevertheless, these officials ignored the Scientologists’ crimes and other public policy-violating activities that these officials knew about. These officials ignored the public policy violations they knew the Scientologists were committing, which, if not ignored, would compel the refusal of tax exemption. These officials ignored the Scientologists’ public policy violations for the specific purpose of granting tax exemption, and the attendant federal religious recognition, which these officials knew were lawfully undeserved.

Worse, it is now clear that these officials actually required that the Scientologists lie in their submissions to the IRS on which the tax exemption is based. It is also clear that the relevant US Federal officials did so in order to trump up a plausible justification for the granting of tax exemption and federal religious recognition, which these officials knew the Scientologists did not deserve. I explained this in the introduction to the Armstrong Operation, which neither the ignore tech-applying Scientologists nor Federal Government officials have refuted. 6

Contrary to what Rinder would have you believe, it is not the law that permits the grant of tax exemption and federal religious recognition to deserving religious entities that is, “the problem.” The problem is not whatever laws direct police departments like Clearwater to treat all federally recognized religious entities equally. Nor is the problem the laws on which Chief Slaughter depends to assert that all federally recognized religious entities can contract for the same services and receive the same services. The problem is created when a legally undeserving entity is given tax exemption and declared a federally recognized religious entity. That is a violation of law, not a problem with the law.

An undeserving entity can obtain these undeserved benefits and religious recognition by fraud, which is itself illegal. The Scientologists had been trying by fraud and related bullying tactics for many years to obtain tax exemption and federal religious recognition. Throughout those years the relevant US officials did not permit the Scientologists to defraud them or defraud the US.

The problem of a legally undeserving entity receiving tax exemption and federal religious recognition is compounded in the Scientology case by the relevant US officials colluding with the Scientologists. This collusion was in violation of US laws for a legally impermissible purpose. The problem is the fakes in the henhouses, including the US Federal fakes in the government’s henhouses. The relevant federal officials faked being defrauded. In fact, these faker officials got rid of any officials who would not fake it. Then the faker officials required that the Scientologists tell lies these officials considered necessary to generate the appearance of merely being defrauded, and cloak the collusion.

There is no way that the involved federal officials could have been “rogues” outside of the Federal Authorities, and outside the Deep State. There is no way that “rogue agents” cooked up and got away with all the colluding done with the Scientologists. Federal authorities knew Scientologists’ long history of criminal and antisocial activities, including crimes against the US and US citizens. These authorities knew the Scientologists’ history could not legally be ignored. These authorities were very aware of the Scientologists’ intelligence proclivities, abilities and activities. These knowledgeable authorities had to be from elements of the US Intelligence Community.

The relevant US officials could not have conspired to break US laws, or have permitted, let alone required themselves and all US citizens to be defrauded, without all relevant elements of the USIC agreeing to this strategy and program. Without USIC approval and direction, the relevant US officials could not have permitted, let alone licensed the Scientologists to criminally victimize US citizens already being criminally victimized.

It is well known, certainly by USIC officials, that at its core and in operation Scientology is an intelligence entity. The Miscavige regimers control their witting, unwitting, willing and unwilling assets the same way other intelligence entities control their assets: contracts, money, threats, extortion, blackmail, lawfare, gags, assaults, death. It is clear to me that the USIC made Scientology and Scientologists USIC assets for the USIC’s purposes. It also clear to me that the USIC did so knowingly to the detriment of US citizens and people around the world.

Importantly for your beef with Rinder, you probably noticed a year ago when he publicly admitted or claimed that he “attended numerous meetings at the IRS during the exemption process and [he] oversaw the collection and preparation of all the documents presented to the IRS.” I’ve also mentioned this a number of times; e.g.,

If he is telling the truth about what he oversaw and what was presented to the IRS, these are the documents on which the tax exemption and federal religious recognition were granted. If Rinder now told the truth about the lies in his submissions for the Scientologists to the IRS, he would blow the lid off those unlawful grants.

I am not implying that the lid cannot be blown off the US Government’s grants of tax exemption and religious recognition without Rinder’s participation in the effort to blow that lid off. Even if Rinder keeps doing what he’s been doing to covertly and overtly keep the Scientologists’ tax exemption and federal religious recognition working, the lid can still be blown off those unlawful grants. I am doing my part for that cause.

If he told the truth about the lies the Scientologists told and the crimes they committed to get their undeserved and unlawful tax exemption and federal religious recognition, he would blow the lid off the Clearwater Government and the Clearwater Police Department’s favoritism and special protections for the Scientologists.

“To blow the lid off,” as Rinder is using the idiom, is “to expose something to the public, often something scandalous or deceptive.” Not blowing the lid off, not exposing the scandalous, deceptive or criminal things he knows about, is his obvious policy and practice. His refusal all these years to blow the lid off what he can easily blow it off, while pretending he was blowing the lid off the scandals, deceptions and criminal things he knows about, is scandalous, deceptive, and criminal.

A lot of the “exposing” or lid-blowing Rinder’s PR assets are crediting him with is actually material, facts or knowledge that had been exposed, had the lid blown off them decades ago. What he has carefully not blown the lid off, not exposed, not told the truth about, is what he did and had others do that was scandalous, deceptive and criminal. I am also doing my part to expose what I experienced or know about these things, including exposing his refusal to tell the truth.

If he told the simple truth about what he did and had done to his wog victims he would be blowing the lid off our religious persecution. The key US Federal criminal statutes the Scientologists are violating, I have no doubt, are 18 USC § 241 “Conspiracy against Rights,” and § 242, “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.” If Rinder told the truth, just what he experienced or knows about his conspiracy and his co-conspirators, he would be blowing the lid off that conspiracy. He would be exposing to the public his conspiracy’s criminal purposes and actions.

In Loyalist Op-2, Rinder is essentially claiming he has no evidence of wrongdoing, or he is at least acting as if he has no such evidence. Otherwise, the narrative goes, he would do something about it, he would expose it or blow the lid off it. I mentioned above that he had run the same lie on me in his 1984 Loyalist Op-1. I commented to Rinder then, and put in my declaration quoted above, that just what the Scientologists had done to me was enough to prove criminality. What the Scientologists had done to me in the less than three years I’d been a wog was enough for actual true-hearted persons, which the Loyalists claimed to be, to take control and end the criminality. Now in Loyalist Op-2, thirty-five years later, still just what Rinder has done to me and had others do to me is enough to blow the lid off the Scientologists’ criminal conspiracy.

Will Rinder murder to protect his crimes and protect Scientology’s unlawful and unlawfully acquired tax exemption and federal religious recognition? If he does not tell the truth about what he and his co-conspirators have done to silence or destroy wogs, to conspire against our rights, and to acquire tax exemption and religious recognition, it should be understood that, as he boasts, he will do anything.

Will Miscavige murder to keep his unlawful and unlawfully obtained tax exemption and federal religious recognition, to keep his crimes and his leadership of the Scientologists’ criminal conspiracy from having the lid blown off them? Will Miscavige murder out of infantile psychopathic revenge because his crimes are even now having the lid blown off them? Until he tells the truth about what he and his co-conspirators have done to silence or destroy wogs, to conspire against our rights, and to unlawfully acquire undeserved tax exemption and religious recognition, it should be understood that he will do anything.

Will the relevant officials in the US Intelligence Community murder, or have others murder us, to keep the illicit, collusive relationship with the Scientology conspirators from having its lid blown off? Until the USIC walks back its decision to collude with the Scientologists, including by denouncing the collusion and the colluders, and by recognizing, reaching out to and helping the Scientologists’ wog victims, it should be accepted that they, just like their Scientologist co-colluders, will do anything.

Notes

by

The SP doctrine and the Aftermath

I sent this letter to Leah Remini via one of her Aftermath producers, and copied Mike Rinder.

February 19, 2019

Dear Ms. Remini:

I am writing about your presentation of the Scientologists’ “Suppressive Person” doctrine, or “SP” doctrine, in your Aftermath series. As you know, I represent the SP Class, and my wife Caroline and I maintain a Suppressive Person Defense League site: http://suppressiveperson.org/

I have been a declared SP since 1982 and Caroline since 2001. I have written extensively about the SP doctrine, spoken about it publicly, and testified about it in legal proceedings.

“Fair Game,” I am sure you know, is the euphemism L. Ron Hubbard coined for the treatment or handling of the SP class, or the execution of the SP doctrine. What the Scientologists call “fair game” is actually a criminal conspiracy against rights and persons.

I have been “fair game” since 1982; that is, I have been for all these years the victim of a criminal conspiracy against my rights and person. As you know, Mike Rinder, your co-producer and costar, is a long time fair gamer, a conspirator targeting me, people acting in concert with me, and other persons in the SP class.

SPs are a religious class sourced in religious scripture by religion founder and religion head Hubbard. What makes an SP an SP, according to Scientology scripture is the commission of “Suppressive Acts.” These acts are listed in scripture, and, although they include a couple of wog world felonies (Hubbard mentions murder and arson), they are largely sacramental religious activities. To the Scientologists, it must be said, murder and arson, and any other crime, is not a suppressive act but an act of honor if committed against an SP, like me.

From a legal and theological understanding, and to the Hubbardist Scientologists, the sacraments that SPs perform are heretical. To SPs, from a legal and theological understanding, and my own long experience and acquired knowledge, these sacraments and their performance are canonical and constitutionally protected religious exercise.

There are several pages of these “Suppressive Acts” in Scientology scripture, and I will not further identify or explain them at this time. In practical terms, and in large part, these come down to or involve telling the truth about something concerning Hubbard, Scientology or Scientologists that the conspirators running Scientology don’t want told.

Scientologists, for example, are directed and drilled to “disseminate,” which is the sacrament of talking to wogs about Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists. SPs do the same thing, perform the same sacrament. SPs talk about Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists; and their colluders, of course. To the Scientologists, SPs just perform the Dissemination Sacrament wrongly, heretically.

Scientologists perform the Dissemination Sacrament by telling others what their leaders tell them to tell about Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists. SPs perform the Dissemination Sacrament by telling what the Scientology conspirators, which includes current head Miscavige, do not want told about Hubbard, Scientology, Scientologists, and the conspirators’ conspiracy.

Commonly, and, of course, spiritually, what the conspirators do not want told is the simple truth about these things. The clear reason the conspirators, which includes Mike Rinder, won’t tell the truth about what they don’t want to the truth told about is because the conspirators’ conspiracy is criminal. The conspirators want to silence people like me about what the conspirators don’t want told for the same reason. And then they want to destroy people like me who won’t be silenced. Because of the spiritual nature of what the Scientologist conspirators are seeking to silence, suppress or destroy – the truth and the truth tellers that would set them free – their conspiracy is not just criminal but demonic.

The majority of “Suppressive Act” sacraments, the performance of which makes SPs SPs, are not crimes or bad acts at all in the wog world or in God’s Judgment. “Suppressive Acts” are, in fact, by and large highly desirable and beneficial societally in the wog world. Consider, for example “public statements against Scientology or Scientologists.” These are simply truthful statements the conspirators running Scientology don’t want said, but which are of great value to society.  “Testifying hostilely” before inquiries is simply testifying truthfully, which is a requirement in every court of law and crucial for justice at all.

Hubbard wrote in scripture that Suppressive Acts are “actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists.” It is abundantly clear that these actions are, in key part, the sacraments of telling the truth, stating actual experiences and knowledge about Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists. It is equally clear that omissions that the Scientology conspirators say suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists are failures to lie, failures to control with lies, failures to say what the conspirators want said, or to do what the conspirators want done.

Telling the truth into the teeth of the Scientology conspiracy against rights is not just a sacrament because Hubbard made it a heretical sacrament in religious scripture. It is a spiritual activity. Many of the Scientologists’ sacraments are basely secular and devoid of spiritual content or meaning, like fraud, extortion, blackmail, hurting people. Telling the truth, however, against all the threats and temptations the conspirators can manufacture, is of the soul.

Hate is a spiritual activity, I believe, and silencing people about their religious experiences and knowledge is demonic. So is destroying them if they won’t easily be shuddered into silence. The Scientologists’ hatred for the SP class is a group spiritual protocol. Mike Rinder obviously brought his hatred of me as an SP with him when he supposedly left the Sea Org and Miscavige’s control. The Scientologists’ protocol of hatred manifests as fair game, the criminal conspiracy against persons and rights. The Scientologists’ religion-wide hatred for the SP class makes Scientology a hate group.

The clearest historical parallel to the Scientologists’ SP doctrine is the Nazis’ Jewish doctrine. They are both evil and logically morally indefensible. Both the Scientologists and the Nazis claimed their doctrines were based in science. This opening statement for a debate with Mark Rathbun on the SP doctrine is worth reading or watching to better understand the doctrine and why I am writing you about the way you presented the doctrine in the Aftermath. https://gerryarmstrong.ca/the-suppressive-person-doctrine-on-trial-opening-statement-by-gerry-armstrong/
I hope you will take this letter to heart, because you are now forwarding a falsehood and a position that serves the Scientologists’ purposes and harms SPs.

One of the Scientologists’ central pieces of tech in their war on the SP class is to redefine what an SP is. This dictionary type definition underlies and makes possible the Scientologists’ fair gaming of the SP class. Fair gaming is the criminal conspiracy against persons who fit that definition. The Scientologists’ scriptural definition is an element in their black PR campaign against SPs like me.

As you know, Scientology scripture states that Scientologists are to degrade SPs’ images to beast level. This is to facilitate, as Hubbard also says in scripture, ruining us utterly or just going all the way in and obliterating us. This evil is spread at the most basic level by defining or redefining “SP.”

The Scientologists’ redefining of what SPs are in order to incite and wage their ugly fair game war on us, evidences their guilty knowledge. They know their doctrine is evil. It is so evil it cannot be defended, except by lying about, or redefining the doctrine’s victims. And this is no defense at all.

Rathbun, with Rinder as editor, defined Suppressive Person in Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior as:

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.

This is patently false, and I went to considerable effort to make clear why it is false, as shown in my debate statement to Rathbun. SPs actually have a tendency to be conscienceful individuals who want peace and prosperity for everyone. SPs not only do not harbor secret goals of destruction, but are the targets and victims of the Scientologists conspiracy to destroy them.

You have similarly redefined and smeared SPs in the Aftermath, and I ask that you take action to correct the record for us. Redefining “SP” as you have serves the Scientology conspirators’ evil purposes toward us. Although I am sure Mike Rinder already knows this, I hope you don’t.

Following are excerpts from the first few episodes that relate to the SP doctrine:

Season 1 Episode 0 [00:19:54.396]

S1E0

LR: And I remember thinking, “If that were true, then the police would be raiding this place. And the FBI would be doing something. If this were true, how come no one has done anything about it?” And I want you to talk about that.

MR: The primary reason Leah is because people within Scientology are indoctrinated heavily that law enforcement –the FBI, the police or whatever–, they’re all horrible suppressive people.

[Screen: A Suppressive Person is a destructive person intent on harming others; this includes critics of Scientology.]

MR: So the concept of even going to them is something that just never enters the mind of a Scientologist.

A Suppressive Person is not a destructive person intent on harming anyone. This redefines “Suppressive Person,” and is black propaganda that harms SPs, the religious class created in Scientology religious scripture, and helps the Scientologists “defend” the SP doctrine.

If you use that definition, you must make sure that it is very clear that this is Hubbard’s or the Scientologists’ definition. Otherwise, you are yourself endorsing and forwarding the definition and the doctrine based on it.

Season 1 Episode 1 [00:36:43.541]

S1E1

[00:36:29.741]

[Screen: After Amy left Scientology she was declared an enemy of the Church or a “Suppressive Person”]

[00:36:32.981]

MR (in studio): For a Scientologist being declared a Suppressive Person is — It is a fate worse than death.

[Screen: SUPPRESSIVE PERSON (SP)

A destructive person intent on harming others; this includes critics of Scientology]

AS: Before I left the Church of Scientology, I did every single thing they asked me to do so that I would not get declared a Suppressive Person. Because I have family in Scientology. I know the ramifications of the disconnection policy. I’ve seen it with other people. And breaking up families. And how devastating it is. And I am very close with my family. And especially my mom.

[…]

LR: I mean, if you read about what a Suppressive Person is, this is a person who loves that people are destroyed. This is a person who loves when people are in pain.

So if you have that idea, that Suppressive People are these other things that come out of the ground, that are devils, that–. No! You never think you’re going to be considered one of those people as a Scientologist. Ever.

Again, an SP is not a destructive person intent on harming others. An SP does not love that people are destroyed or in pain. SPs are not things that come out of the ground, that are devils. SPs are not such entities any more than the Jews are such entities. Jews are a similar minority religious group. Saying SPs are destructive persons intent on harming others is as bad, if not worse, than saying Jews are destructive persons intent on harming others. Saying SPs love that people are destroyed or in pain, or that SPs are devils, is as bad, if not worse, than saying Jews are these evils.

Season 1 Episode 2 [00:12:32.086]

S1E2

[00:12:28.400]

MR (in kitchen): Fair Game is the idea that anybody who is an enemy or a critic of Scientology may have anything done to them with the idea that the ends justifies the means. And there is a bunch of writings by L. Ron Hubbard that describe how you get rid of an attacker.

[Screen: HCOPL 18 October 1967 Penalties for Lower Conditions.]

It basically says that you can do anything to a critic or an enemy of Scientology and not be subjected to any form of Scientology justice or ethics handling as a result.

LR: But the Church claims that policy has been cancelled.

[Screen: HCO PL 21 October 1968 Cancellation of Fair Game]

MR: It was cancelled for PR reasons. And that this does not change the treatment of SPs, Suppressive Persons.

[Screen: SUPPRESSIVE PERSON (SP)

A destructive person intent on harming others. This includes critics of Scientology]

Again, SPs are not destructive persons intent on harming others. You must correct this falsehood you are perpetrating about the SP class.

SPs are, even by Hubbard’s definition, persons who commit any Suppressive Acts. That is the correct definition.

Suppressive Acts are acts identified in Scientology scripture.

The identified Suppressive Acts are, in huge part, religious rites or sacraments, not recognizable as offenses of any kind in wog society.

These sacraments commonly involve telling the simple truth about Scientology-related matters that should have the truth told about them.

Scientology descriptions of the nature or character and intentions of SPs is false, hateful and threatening.

In their black PR campaigns, Scientologists say SPs are destructive, intent on harming others. The Scientologists equate SPs with persons identified by wog medical scientists as psychopaths, sociopaths or antisocial personalities. SPs, as I have shown, are in the vast majority, merely citizens who speak up and tell the truth about what the Scientology conspirators don’t want told.

What the Scientologists and their colluders say to black PR the SP religious class, to reduce us to beast level, is defamatory, evil and criminal. It is a facet of the Scientologists’ conspiracy against persons and rights.

I ask you to repudiate the SP doctrine, take down anything that shows your support for the doctrine, as shown above, and speak up in real defense of the pan-denominational SP religious class.

Sincerely,

Gerry Armstrong

by

On the line for victims

I sent this letter to Leah Remini via one of her Aftermath producers, and copied Mike Rinder.

February 15, 2019

Dear Ms. Remini:

I am sure I do not have to explain who I am.

I am writing about much the same thing I’ve written about Mike Rinder since he started claiming that he is now telling the truth about what he did and had others do to victimize people when he was formally posted in the Miscavige sect’s Office of Special Affairs. I have been writing that contrary to his PR, Rinder has not told such very important truth.

I have demonstrated this fact about Rinder with my record of his extreme victimizing of me over many years, my record of reaching out to him in the years since he left his formal posting, and the record of his refusal over these years to tell the truth about what he did and had done to victimize me. This is a key set of Rinder-related documents:
http://armstrong-op.gerryarmstrong.ca/mike-rinder/

What he did and had done to me includes ongoing black propaganda and crimes, which he could help correct if he told the truth about them. This includes his false statements about me, indeed filthy black PR, to the IRS to get tax exemption.

I have challenged him to identify anyone, any wog, whom he victimized more than me. Not only has he never identified any wog whom he victimized or had victimized more than me, but neither has anyone else has ever identified any other wog he victimized more than me.

If, Ms. Remini, you know of any wog Rinder has victimized more than me, please tell me who that person is. I represent all of Rinder’s victims whose victimization he has never told the truth about. Many of these people he has criminally silenced, so they can’t speak up for themselves.

What brings me to reach out to you today is something he wrote about you in an article “The Aftermath — An Update” that he posted on February 13:

She has put herself and her position on the line for victims, and even for me, when others would not. Always standing on the side of the truth and demanding that everyone involved in the show do so is something to be admired. Ask any of the people who have been on The Aftermath and they will all 100% agree with me — for they have experienced the force of nature that is Leah crusading for justice for the victims of scientology (and now other abusive organizations). She is the best friend you could ever want to have in your corner.

If you really demand that everyone involved in the show stand on the side of truth, then Rinder has not complied with your demand. He does not stand on the side of truth.

He certainly talks about truth, about standing on truth’s side, and about telling the truth, but that is just talk. He claimed to be on the side of truth all the years he ran OSA and was the Miscavige sect’s head spokesliar. He hasn’t even corrected the dangerous lies he spread and had others spread about wogs like me while he was inside running the sect’s operations.

I’m asking you to clarify a few things:

Do you really demand that everyone involved in the show stand on the side of truth?

Rinder says you always stand on the side of truth, but this again is him talking. Do you in fact stand on the side of truth?

Do you put yourself on the line for Rinder’s victims?

Or by not putting yourself on the line for Rinder’s victims, do you put yourself on the line, just as you put yourself on the line inside Scientology, for the victimizer?

It is clear to me that you have not crusaded for justice for the wogs your co-star victimized and had victimized. His implication that his victims were included in all the victims whose justice you were crusading for is clearly untrue. But are you now willing to actually crusade for justice for your co-star’s biggest victim, his victim who represents all his victims?

Sincerely,

Gerry Armstrong

by

Lying to the FBI or else

I was asked about Leah Remini, Mike Rinder, the FBI and the effect my communications are having. Because my relationships with them are matters of public interest to both Scientologists and wogs, I’m posting my response, which follows.

I always have retained hope that my efforts would be worthwhile or worthy. And I’ve always asked that they be. At the same time, I know that it is the labor that is valuable, not the effect or result, which is honestly out of my hands. In my case, my labor, and my brilliant wife Caroline’s labor, has generated, unplanned, a massive, well-documented record, which can be used for education and justice purposes beyond our lifetimes. A long and meaty part of that record concerns Rinder, his treatment or handling of his wog victims, and his dealing with legitimate challenges.

I can’t know if Remini forgives Rinder, or even if she forgives anyone. I can know that she is aware that in all the episodes he did not tell the specific, time, place, form and event truth about what he did to silence or destroy his victims, although his being the Miscavige cult’s key silencer and destroyer was acknowledged.

It would be ordinary due diligence for Remini, her production company and A & E to know what my history is with Rinder, and my current challenges to him, and to her. They might, as Rinder does, treat or handle me as not worth granting a scintilla of credence. SPD 28 “Suppressive Act – Dealing with a Declared Suppressive Person” is eerily on point:

To maintain a line with, offer support to, or in any way grant credence to such a person indicates nothing more than agreement with that person’s destructive intentions and acts. Such dealings in fact act as a covert or overt attempt to undermine and negate the ethics and justice strengths of our ecclesiastical structure.1

They nevertheless had a responsibility to know of my existence and the challenges I present. And Rinder might have had a duty to divulge to the other Aftermath principals where his scruples might be exposed.

So I don’t think it’s forgiveness from Remini to Rinder, except for perhaps what he did or had done to her. For what Rinder did or had done or is doing to me, I think her position is the same as Rinder’s: that I deserved it then and deserve it now, and am consequently not worth in any way granting any credence. Therefore there’s nothing to forgive.

That is the same position we took in Scientology: SPs deserved whatever Hubbard, Miscavige, Rinder, et al. could do to deprive them of property, injure them by any means, trick them, sue them, lie to them or destroy them. Therefore Hubbard and co. didn’t need forgiveness; they needed our support so they could crush the SPs.

Then there’s the IRS billion dollar tax exemption.

If it is conceivably true that if Rinder told the truth to the FBI he would be prosecuted or it would result in legal actions of one form or another, then he could not have told the truth because he is far from prosecuted and no Federal legal actions have resulted.

The fact that Rinder has been to the FBI is as meaningless as the fact that Miscavige has been to the FBI, or Moxon has been to the FBI, or Hubbard had been to the FBI. Only open statements to his victims are meaningful to his victims. His claimed visits to the FBI in fact are used to excuse his failure to tell the truth to his victims and do what he can to correct ongoing injustices and black propaganda.

The US Federal Government, specifically elements of the US Intelligence Community, colluded with the Scientologists beginning as early as 1991, and broke US laws to grant the cult tax exemption. Relevant US Government officials knew that the Scientologists under Miscavige, just like the Scientologists under Hubbard, were continuously violating public policy, including by framing me and seeking to silence or destroy me. So when Rinder goes to the FBI, if he does, it is to ensure it is known he is not going to tell the truth about lies in the Scientologists’ IRS submissions, the truth about his persecution of the SP religious class, the truth about his conspiracy against rights, and the truth about the Government agencies’ collusion with his co-conspirators.

By having Rathbun make himself so repulsive, and by having him appear to criticize Rinder for what he should be criticized for – not telling the truth about his crimes against wogs — it is then possible to put people who criticize Rinder for not telling the truth – notably his victims — in the same hole for black PR purposes as the repulsive Rathbun.

Rathbun has a second purpose as well. Because Rinder doesn’t provide any specifics of what he did, Rathbun says, his claim on the Aftermath of silencing or destroying people is false. That is, ethical Scientologists have never tried to silence or destroy anyone; otherwise Rinder would say what they did. I think Rathbun signaled to Rinder what a good job he was doing not exposing their crimes and conspiracy.

It is also worth noting that Rathbun’s manifold inconsistencies between what he said at different times renders him a bad witness in legal proceedings, which is what the conspirators would want from him.

Fortunately Rinder doesn’t have everyone bamboozled.

Notes

  1. SPD 28: Dealing With A Declared Suppressive Person:  http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/spd-28-1982-08-13-txt.html ↩

by

Destroying wogs: the real crime against humanity

I was asked about Mike Rinder and whether he would be prosecuted if he came clean; and because this is a matter of public interest to both Scientologists and wogs, I’m posting my response, which follows, with a couple of minor pronoun changes:

I do not believe there would be any prosecution of Mike Rinder if he told the truth about his knowledge of what Scientology, Scientologists and their colluders did to wogs. The threat of prosecution is invented to give Rinder an excuse to not tell the truth.

He very well could be pilloried for not coming forward and telling the truth all these supposedly post-cult years, and that threat grows with each day he delays. But the likelihood of prosecution if he told the truth I think is zero.

On the other hand, if he continues to not tell the truth, and in fact still keeps the conspiracy against rights working, he really does risk prosecution if the conspirators are prosecuted. By law they should be. By just what they have done to silence or destroy me they could be. Except that the US Government, the US Intelligence Community and US courts have been so corrupted, they would be.

Rinder certainly is not being prosecuted for telling some of the horrors of what Scientology, Scientologists and their colluders do to Scientologists.

Notice that Rinder and Remini’s principal and somewhat detailed complaint against Scientology is the Scientologists’ treatment of themselves. Rinder and Remini present this as mistreatment of lower level Scientologists by higher level Scientologists. Rinder and Remini say they’re stopping the buck with cult head David Miscavige. Nevertheless, it is treatment or handling by Scientologists on Scientologists.

If fight clubbers form the Church of Fight Club, and they all know that they will be beaten and have to beat others, that would be perfectly legal in the US, and deserving of religious tax exemption.

It can easily be demonstrated that Scientologists all agree to lie to each other. We gave broken lip service to the truth, but that’s just one lie in a constant stream of lies.

We all agreed to be sadomasochists; even though what we were sold was something very different. We were all sold the most ethical organization on the planet, the only hope, the only workable tech to end the endless sadomasochism. We were sold and we sold others these lies every day of our Scientology years. The ideal in Scientology is to be a cleared sadist, no longer held back by self-harming, self-hating masochistic images and urges.

The ideal in Scientology is total control – the KRC triangle, CCHs, 8-C – although only one person in each Scientology sect can achieve that, Scientology being dictatorial. To be able to achieve total control, the dictator must have controlled subjects, who are willing to control others, which we were. See the Eric Fromm quote below regarding sadism and control.

We all had our basic human rights suppressed and destroyed. We agreed to that. We didn’t object to our rights and our fellow humans’ rights being suppressed and destroyed. And we supported our seniors right up to cult head Hubbard with our time and money no matter what they did. We didn’t even insist on knowing what they did.

They employed human rights-suppressing and -destroying personnel, like Rinder, to carry out their post duties. We slaved so that wogs in the SP class – wogs willing to tell the truth about Hubbard, Scientology and Scientologists — could be silenced or destroyed. Didn’t we at some point take some pride in making it go right despite the abuse and degradation we are taking?

Wogs, however, I for example, did not agree to be beat up, did not agree to be lied to, did not agree to permit our fellow wogs being lied to, did not agree to be abused or degraded, did not agree to have our basic human rights taken from us, did not agree to be silenced or destroyed.

Scientologists take all the abuse they take from their fellow Scientologists to keep being able to do their jobs clearing the planet. In great part that comes down to supporting the specialists like Rinder who, spending untold millions on lawyers and PIs, are mowing down the SP class, getting in ethics on the planet, achieving the VFPs of Department 20, “the total acceptance of Scientology and its founder.”

It is what the Scientologists and their colluders have done to wogs that must be confronted, and that is what, except for unimportant generalities, Rinder and Remini have avoided in the Aftermath, and in their activities outside the program. What Scientologists have done to wogs, to strip our human rights or silence or destroy us, is where the conspiracy is vulnerable and is where some serious legal and societal good can be done.

What Scientologists do to each other, even though demonic, has some latitude because of freedom of religion, the freedom of the Church of the Holy Beatdown to operate and the freedom of its members to beat the shit out of each other. They prove their sincerity as a religion or church by being willing to have the shit beat out of them. They can form an inner conspiracy that can order the shit beatings.

But the Scientologists cannot lawfully conspire against the rights of wogs who did not agree to have their rights destroyed.

And they cannot lawfully silence anyone about their experiences with or knowledge of Scientology, because of the guarantee of freedom of religion and because Scientology is a religion. It’s an evil, criminal, luciferian religion, but nonetheless a religion.

The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness

© 1973 Eric Fromm

Malignant Aggression: Cruelty and Destructiveness
The Varieties of Aggression and Destructiveness pp. 322-333

The Nature of Sadism

I have given these examples of Stalin’s sadism because they serve very well to introduce the central issue: the nature of sadism. Thus far we have dealt descriptively with various kinds of sadistic behavior, sexual, physical, and mental. These different forms of sadism are not independent from each other; the problem is to find the common element, the essence of sadism. Orthodox psychoanalysis claimed that a particular aspect of sexuality was common to all these forms; in the second phase of Freud’s theory it was asserted that sadism was a blending of Eros (sexuality) and the death instinct, directed outside oneself, while masochism is a blend of eros and the death instinct, directed toward oneself.

Against this, I propose that the core of sadism, common to all its manifestations, is the passion to have absolute and unrestricted control over a living being, whether an animal, a child, a man, or a woman. To force someone to endure pain or humiliation without being able to defend himself is one of the manifestations of absolute control, but it is by no means the only one. The person who has complete control over another living being makes this being into his thing, his property, while he becomes the other being’s god. Sometimes the control can even be helpful, and in that case we might speak of a benevolent sadism, such as one finds in instances where one person rules another for the other’s own good, and in fact furthers him in many ways, except that he keeps him in bondage. But most sadism is malevolent. Complete control over another human being means crippling him, choking him, thwarting him. Such control can have all forms and all degrees.

 

by

Fair Game: more telling untold stories

On October 24, 2016, I emailed a letter to HarperCollins Publishers Australia Pty Ltd and Steve Cannane to complain about how he dealt with me in Fair Game: the Incredible Untold Story of Scientology in Australia. I identified fact errors and  defamatory statements about me, and I included a number of fact errors and spelling or semantic mistakes that are not directly related to me, but which caught my eye in a quick read through the book. On November 7, 2016, I posted my complaint letter and an explanatory note: http://gerryarmstrong.ca/speaking-up-about-fair-game/

On December 17, 2016, I received a response from Cannane to my October 24, 2016 letter:

From: Steve Cannane [mailto:[  ]
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 10:01 AM
To: gerry@gerryarmstrong.org
Subject: responses

Gerry,

Sorry it has taken a while to get back to you. I have been very busy with work. It also took me a while to go through your list and check my sources.

I was a bit surprised you sent that email to my publisher given we were already corresponding about proposed corrections that you were planning to send me. I can understand you contacting them afterwards if you’re weren’t happy with the changes I was planning to make, but beforehand seems a bit much.

Also the tone of your email was pretty mean spirited Gerry. It seemed like you were trying to undermine my credibility to my publisher because I didn’t get you to fact check the book.  You couldn’t even find a positive thing to say about the book! Even though I uncovered new documents, spoke to people who hadn’t gone on the record before and revealed stories that you didn’t even know despite your extensive knowledge.

I did show the book, or passages of the book, to a select few people.  I did not think to show it to you, because to be honest, I don’t know you. I met you at Toronto and briefly corresponded with you over email. I couldn’t risk letting any of it get out pre-publication as you would understand. Your actions since tell me I made the right decision. What you publish on your website shows me you lack discretion. I could only afford to show it to people I could trust.

The idea you put forward in your email that I am “forwarding the Scientologists’ black PR” is absurd, and undermines the credibility of your criticisms of the book. The way you put it in your email it’s as if the two people who I did trust to pre-read my book are somehow agents of this black PR. This is crazy talk.

Gerry, I have no idea what it’s like to walk in your shoes and to have been targeted in the awful way that you have been. But can I suggest you step back and try and see that not everyone has evil intentions against you? Can you try and realise that not everyone sees the perceived slights that you do?

Where I have made mistakes, I will correct them, and I thank you for pointing them out. Much of what you have listed in your email is either contestable or your opinion. I have responded to your list with some notes below.

A – You are right Gerry, a spelling mistake by me. I will get it corrected.

B – Why are you making this passage about yourself Gerry? Your story is a minor part of the book. What I am referring to here is the people whose stories I was telling that related to allegations of abuse and were happy to have them tested. What you say does not disprove the point I am making here.

C – I will check this with the people I have spoken to who were on the RPF in Australia and if you are right I will correct it.

D – This is an impressive list of hot and humid climates that Hubbard visited. But how do they compare to Brisbane? I have been in England for 8 months and I can tell you I am not used to the cold.  I was brought up in a hot climate and doubt I will ever get used to it. I don’t think that was an unfair thing for me to write.

E – If the Polk was a transport ship taking him to the Philippines isn’t he still serving on it?  I don’t see what is wrong here.

F – Did the YP-422 see active duty under Hubbard’s command? I am happy to correct this if I am wrong.

Yes I wrote that Hubbard lost command after the Cape Lookout incident and I was careful not to draw a direct causal link, in case there were other factors at play, but you seem to be sure that it was not because of this. If so why did he lose command? If you are telling me it wasn’t because of the incident, then that suggests you know why.

Re the magnetic deposit, I’m not sure how you say that was “probably wrong”. Both Owen and Miller – good sources – say the implication was clear from Fletcher’s report that the PC-815 had fought a two-day battle with a magnetic deposit. Why would Fletcher mention the magnetic deposit in the context of his view that there was no submarine in the area, if he was not suggesting this?  Jon Atack reaches the same conclusion here http://tonyortega.org/2016/09/10/laying-to-rest-the-obfuscations-of-l-fletcher-prouty-scientologys-conspiracist-for-hire/

Laying to rest the obfuscations of L. Fletcher Prouty …

tonyortega.org

Jon Atack is the author of A Piece of Blue Sky, one of the very best books on L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. He has a new edition of the book for sale, and for more …

I consider Atack, Miller and Owen to be excellent sources.

G — I am not sure what your point is here

H — Prouty was named as Hubbard’s authorised biographer in the Sunday Times in November 1987
https://whyweprotest.net/threads/the-strange-case-of-jan-grieve-einar-cynewulf.108622/

It’s listed on Amazon with an ISBN number – though I believe never published.
Publisher: Bridge Pubns (Aug. 1990)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 088404274X
ISBN-13: 978-0884042747

I — Sounds weird? That’s your opinion Gerry. The main point here is that Hubbard wrote the statement for the Sunday Times that said he broke up black magic in the US. It’s not the case that is relevant here, it’s that he wrote it! You seem to be making this about yourself again. Jon’s book is a completely legitimate source for this.

You may be right that the notes have inconsistencies, but that does not mean they are wrong. It’s more highly footnoted than most Scientology books. They are there as a guide for people to find the evidence themselves, and they can from what I have put in my end notes. I am a journalist, not an academic. I’d rather the book be out there and people reading it, than me spending another 6 months finessing the endnotes so they are consistent.

J — If the case went to trial in 1984, I don’t have a problem with calling it the 1984 court case. That’s when it was in court wasn’t it?  You obviously have a different view on this.

K — Gerry I don’t read this implication at all. The important fact was you were a member of the Sea Org, so dedicated to Scientology and Hubbard, but you fell out of favour with the hierarchy when you wrote the report.

If it’s a case of reports rather than a report, I am happy to add an s.

‘Fell out of favour’ may not in your mind adequately summarise what happened to you. But it’s not wrong. I had to quickly summarise your role. This page is about the Affirmations, the chapter is about Hubbard and his war record, do you think I really should get bogged down in the minutiae of your story? Or press on and tell the reader about Hubbard?

Isn’t ‘contradiction’ correct? Weren’t you showing the differences between the truth and reality? By one dictionary definition, a contradiction is ‘an assertion of the contrary or the opposite’. Isn’t that accurate?

L — I don’t see the implication that you see in this and I think you’re going completely over the top in comparing it to black propaganda attacks from Scientologists. I don’t run the argument that you stole the documents – on the contrary I mention that you were unsuccessfully sued – which suggests doesn’t it, that you didn’t steal them? How could this sentence create the false impression you say it does? I don’t say you sent the documents to your lawyer because you fell out of favour with the Scientology hierarchy.

This passage in my book is about Hubbard and the Affirmations. If I go into the nitty gritty of your court case as you lay it out in the email, it becomes about you and your case, which is not the story I am telling. You must understand I am using shorthand here to describe in part what happened.

I understand that you would be sensitive to how this chain of events was laid out. If you think there’s a way I can better express it in a sentence or two, by altering certain words or including certain information, let me know and I will consider it.

I take your point re “what the church saw” and that maybe ‘what it claimed’ would have be better, but really this seems a bit pedantic. The key point once again was that they ‘unsuccessfully sued’.  You were vindicated!! Do you really think the reader, having read about all the other underhand and illegal activities the Church of Scientology was up to, then sees you were ‘unsuccessfully sued’ by them would somehow think that you had acted inappropriately? It defies logic Gerry. They would understand exactly what they were up to – they were using the legal system to try and intimidate and punish you. How can you not see this?

M — Re the issue of url’s I include some but not others, I noticed in my research that sometimes urls become obsolete after a certain amount of time. Yes I’m guilty of inconsistency with putting some urls and not others but I’m sure if people want to find them, they can.

N — Re you being an archivist for Hubbard or Scientology, I think its fair to say both. The Church of Scientology paid you didn’t they?

0 – you are right, I will correct this

P —  Re the RPF I will change this so it does not look like you were a member of the RPF at the time

Re being named as a source of leads and information. This does not make it sound like you were a fact checker at all. It is what it is.  You were named as one of 19 former Scientologists who gave me leads and information. This is what you did Gerry and I was grateful for the information you gave me.  Jon is the person I thank in the book for fact checking. You are once again seeing things that are not there.

Q — Miller in Bare Faced Messiah says they were uniformed. I am happy to check with people who were in Clearwater at the time to see if this was true.

R — Maybe you are right about this Gerry, perhaps I should’ve written ‘said’, or ‘wrote’ rather than ‘believed’.

S — I don’t recall where I got that information on DeSapio, if I had cited every single source for every single piece of information, the book would be the size of a piano.

T – you are right I will correct the spelling of Wolfe.

U – Maybe I should’ve put anti-social personalities in inverted commas – however it is strongly implied in this sentence that this is Hubbard’s belief. I am not sure why you have to bring Nazi comparisons into this Gerry, it doesn’t really do your argument any credit.

V — I will look this up, but if I am wrong I am happy to amend.

W — Terri told me this, when I checked with her she said “in a nutshell it was for defending him”. In your notes it says you were joined by Terri on the last couple of days of you being locked up – does this mean that what she said is right? Or were you not on the RPF at the time?

X — yes you are right I will insert that word.

Y — I can see plenty of references to “Bay area” – while what you say may be the more usual term, I don’t think what I have written is wrong.

Z — Yes I have spelt this name wrong, I will correct it.

AA, BB, and CC I will check all these with the legal team

DD — Jon Atack told me that the GO was autonomous from the Church of Scientology you obviously disagree.

regards,

Steve

On December 18, I emailed Cannane and cced HarperCollins:

From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Date: Sunday, 18 December 2016 at 21:15
To: Steve Cannane <[  ] >
Cc: [HarperCollins]
Subject: RE: responses

Dear Steve:

Thank you for your response to my piece.

I sent it to your publisher not to undermine your credibility with HarperCollins, but because of the company’s responsibility as publisher. I would think your publisher would want to do what it sensibly can to save your credibility or reinforce it. I have a legitimate relationship with both HarperCollins and you.

It will take some time to prepare a reply to your various points that to me remain unresolved. But for now, can you please identify whatever it is that is published on my website that you say shows you that I lack discretion.

Discretion is an issue in all journalism, and here actions and inactions are being pinned to its claimed absence.

Your publisher could also get the wrong idea you’re proffering, that I communicated because you didn’t get me to fact check the book. There is no such suggestion in what I wrote, and it was not in any way a function or duty I wanted, or regretted not having.

It is, however, regrettable that you did not ask me to fact check the passages about me. I am the wrong person to fact check your book. I am the right person to fact check your facts about me.

It is true that when I read through the book I noted some misspellings, typos and fact errors that an editor or fact checker might have caught, and that many of these did not relate directly to me or my history. In fact, I noted in my October 24 letter to HarperCollins: “Some items concern me personally, some concern L. Ron Hubbard’s or Scientology’s history, and some items are just typos or similar that caught my eye and I thought the publisher and the author would appreciate knowing about.” I only noted errors that did not concern me because they appeared to me when reading the book to comment on errors that did concern me.

The reason you give for not sending me the passages about me to check — that I might therefore publish the book you weren’t sending me, or you couldn’t risk letting any of it get out pre-publication — does not wash journalistically. Your actual fact checkers also never checked your facts about me with me.

I will deal with the journalistic question of not checking facts because the facts being fact-checked might get out when I deal with the rest of your response. For now, as I mentioned, I would be grateful if you would point me to what on my site, or sites, shows you that I lack discretion. That information would facilitate a fuller, more clarifying reply from me.

Regards,

Gerry

On December 19, I received a reply email from Cannane:

From: Steve Cannane [mailto:[  ]
Sent: December 19, 2016 5:17 AM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: responses

Hi Gerry,

What I am talking about re discretion is publishing people’s email correspondence online.

Now I’m not getting all high and mighty about this, I have published people’s emails without their consent when I have believed there has been a public interest in doing so. All of us have our own boundaries where we draw the line on this. I may be wrong but you seem to be pretty liberal when it comes to disclosing other people’s emails.  When it came to trusting people pre publication I had to be sure about the people I could show it to.  I trusted Tony and Jon. That was my judgement call and I think it was a good one.

To back up my point once again you copy your response (and therefore my email) on to my publisher.  As far as I’m concerned this was personal correspondence between you and I. This shows a lack of discretion. It doesn’t particularly bother me  because I stand by what I have said, but it’s just not the done thing.

As I said to before, I believed I was working from good sources on all the stories in my book. If I have got anything wrong, I am happy  to correct it. I will deal with that after I get your responses.

Regards,

Steve

On December 19, I emailed Cannane and cced HarperCollins:

From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Date: Monday, 19 December 2016 at 21:47
To: Steve Cannane <[  ] >
Cc: [HarperCollins]
Subject: RE: responses

Dear Steve:

Again, I never asked to see your book pre-publication, nor did I even think of fact-checking your book. I did not want to be your fact checker. If done conscientiously, fact-checking your book would have taken a lot of time and effort. I was not complaining about your not sending me your draft or manuscript. I was not even complaining that you didn’t check your facts about me with me. I complained that while not checking your facts about me with me, for whatever reason, you got facts about me wrong. Now, unfortunately, I can add complaints about fatuous excuses and browbeating.

It is true that you got some facts wrong that were not about me, and I noticed and noted some in my review. That does not mean or suggest, however, that I wanted to fact check your book or was fact checking your book.

Your claim is that you didn’t check your facts about me with me because you did not know me and did not trust me. Even if you actually didn’t know me, and even if I actually was untrustworthy, however, these are spurious reasons. It defies journalistic logic. People a journalist is writing about but doesn’t know should be people about and with whom he scrupulously checks his facts. A journalist can’t avoid checking with people he’s writing about because they might be untrustworthy. He still has to be fair to them. Assuming untrustworthiness also evidences a decisive bias from the outset. Now you’ve heaped on bias confirmation.

The facts are that you knew me, and you knew that my facts could be trusted. The trustworthiness of my facts is relevant. My trustworthiness regarding some risk that I might publish whatever you could have sent me to fact check is not relevant. The “risk” has never been identified, and, from all information available, is invented.

You wrote that I would understand that you couldn’t risk letting any of it get out pre-publication, but that is not true. I do not understand; at least in the sense that I accept what you’re saying about risk.  It seems to me, if there really was such a risk – that if you checked your facts about me with me something might get out — you would not have to contrive the idea that I wanted to see or possess your book pre-publication, or that you would have to send me the whole book for me to be able to check the facts about me.

I would never have tried to control what you published; but you knew my facts were accurate enough and articulated well enough to at least merit an opportunity to provide them. After that, you could have still chosen to publish whatever you want, even untruths or faulty facts.

I am certain that you have communicated your opinions and fact claims about me to others. I can prove to everyone with our pre-publication email correspondence, Harper-Collins included, that you knew me, and knew my facts could be trusted. So you can see how such can become a matter of public interest.

Surely you would agree that I did not publish any of our pre-publication correspondence before you made your not knowing me and not trusting me your reasons for not checking your facts about me with me. The subject facts are published in a globally promoted and sold book by one of the world’s largest publishing companies.

There are a number of journalism questions that have developed from my relationship with you, which are matters of public interest and deserve analysis. For example, when does a journalist know a person he is writing about well enough to create an ethical requirement to check his facts about that person with that person? If the subject is available, of course, which I was.

Among the emails you say I disclosed on my site or sites, can you identify any that concern pre-publication fact-checking or other pre-publication matters, or that expose, disclose or even discuss a writer’s pre-publication manuscript, draft, book or article?

I asked if you could identify whatever it is that is published on my website that you say shows you that I lack discretion. You wrote that my lack of discretion is shown by my publishing people’s email correspondence online. Can you please identify what email correspondence you are referring to.

Although there is a personal component in the correspondence between you and me, from at least the point when you wrote about me and HarperCollins published about me a professional relationship was created. My communications to your publisher do not reveal indiscretion but do demonstrate a problem in our professional relationship. I don’t think you should say you stand by what you have said when you have already acknowledged errors in what you have said. I don’t believe that it’s just not the done thing for a person aggrieved by a publication to communicate to the publisher, to complain to the publisher, to look to the publisher for correction of errors. The publisher might be too big to give a fig, but it would not be indiscrete of an aggrieved person to communicate his grievances to that gargantuan publisher, as well as the publisher’s writer.

Regards,

Gerry

On December 21, 2016, I received an email from Cannane:

From: Steve Cannane [mailto: [  ]
Sent: December 21, 2016 5:11 AM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Subject: Re: responses

Hi Gerry,

I think we’ve both made our respective points clear to each other. I’m currently busy covering terrorism attacks in Europe and child sexual abuse and don’t have time to have a debate about the definition of discretion.

Come back to me with responses to my responses to your list and then I will tell you what alterations I am willing to make.

If I have any further questions I will them come back to you.

Regards,

Steve

Cannane and I have not corresponded since. There is a clear public interest in my relationship with him, his fact checkers Tony Ortega and Jon Atack, Cannane’s major Fair Game contributor Mike Rinder, HarperCollins, government entities and the Scientologists, and in good and fake investigative journalism, and other social or theological issues, which, for understanding’s sake, compels this matter’s and these emails’ publication.

Since Cannane says essentially that he didn’t trust me with what he was writing and would publish about me, and that he knew I could post email correspondence, and since he had emailed back and forth with me prior to publication, he should have been extra-careful to write and publish the truth and give me an opportunity to read and comment on what he was writing about me, rather than use his bogus mistrust to fudge facts, justify his poor journalism and protect an antisocial agenda.