Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecute?

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
User avatar
operatingwog
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside

Post by operatingwog » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:52 pm

Swift I'm done. If we don't agree now then we never will. No need to take it anywhere else.
“These guys are crazy. And all of this shit is straight out of the L. Ron Hubbard playbook. That’s their scriptures. They say they’re not a turn-the-other-cheek religion. No. They’re a knock-you-down-and-kick-you-in-the-balls religion.” Jason Beghe

User avatar
Tenor
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:23 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside

Post by Tenor » Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:16 am

Gumbythetruth wrote:
What I do not get and have not for sometime is the fact that here we have a supposedly wonderful ideology, meaning scientology.

[snipped for brevity, not content.]
Hi Gumbythe truth,

Your warmth, intelligence, and compassion are truly impressive in a very gentle way, both reassuring and comforting. If we had a world filled with people such as yourself, it would be a great place!

Scn is not, IMO, an ideology, but a science. Ideology includes "intentions" in the context of social or political movements, and as such, implies a morality, and presumably some ideal to achieve, with some values. Science, it has been noted, is amoral. It is not "immoral", nor "moral". It simply lacks morality. Scns who think Scn is a new morality, one in which morals and values and virtues do not play a part, are mistaken. "Love" is a word which can represent and allude to many virtues. All of these are the essence of a being. As Hubbard wrote in a well-known piece he entitled "What is Greatness": "Happiness and strength endure only in the absence of hate. To hate alone is the road to disaster. To love is the road to strength. To love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. And may very well be the greatest secret in this universe."

To use the word morals again, to keep this in context of the amorality of science, morals are the "living" part of a living being. Perhaps I should say science is clinical, and devoid of love, but ohers have said "amoral" so I think I'll stick with that. In several instances, Scn as written, the foundations of it, are amoral. When auditing someone, for example, the auditor does not evaluate whether something is wrong or right (good or bad). It is as the individual being audited says it is: wrong, or right. Only he is able to judge his own past actions. Auditors are thoroughly trained to not invalidate, nor evaluate. Auditing is amoral. The goal of auditing, the measure of success for the auditor, is for the individual being audited to discharge mental masses which inhibit or enforce or deny or stop his thought, or stifle his desire, or blunt his curiosity. The discharge of mental masses is clinical, and amoral.

It seems to me that perhaps many Scns who have read some of the science, who have had some auditing and some training in how to audit, have become a bit too familiar with this amorality, and may have come to think that life is amoral. Sounds like a shocking thing to say, but look at the Co$, and those in it, who seem to believe that as long as the organization is growing, that is the goal of Scn. That is NOT the goal of Scn, it is the goal of the organization, and the two are NOT the same goal. It seems to me that the FZ and Indies - those who are out of the organization - have left behind what is clearly the organizational amorality, and I am hoping that these individuals have seen that their own personal morality is the very basis of their dreams and aspirations as living beings, and that Scn the science is there solely to enable those into fruition in long and happy lives. Scn is founded on the belief that man is basically good (Hubbard said words to that effect, somewhere). If you take the good, the love, out of the being, you no longer really have a being, really, you only have a kind of dying thing. (If you take the humor out of life, what's the point to the joke?)

I hope I haven't been too wordy nor disrupted anything in this factually informative and very (horrifyingly) concrete thread. If anyone is interested in pursuing this I'd be happy to engage, but will leave it at this, otherwise.

Tenor.

Don Carlo
Posts: 12113
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecut

Post by Don Carlo » Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:52 am

Your article reads better if you were to say Scientology = rigid procedure. Not science; science = double-blind testing, peer-reviewed articles in real journals. Science doesn't slavishly follow a cookbook; science tries to rewrite the cookbook or even change the format to beyond a printed book.

User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10215
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside

Post by J. Swift » Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:23 am

caroline wrote:...Scripture is part of the Scientology v. Armstrong cases. Scripture was part of the investigations done when the Scientologists tried to have Gerry criminally prosecuted on their false charges.
But Caroline, Scientology scripture has made no difference whatsoever in Gerry's thirty-year old legal case:

Gerry lost his case.

Gerry lost all of his appeals.

In 2006, the California Supreme Court refused to review Gerry's case.

So yes, we can see just how crucial Scientology scripture has been to Gerry's case.


******
caroline wrote:Karen's statement that "Criminal acts are separated out from Religious Beliefs" is meaningless. Who does this? And how is it done?
Caroline, I have to flunk you here on your internet lawyering. To answer your question of who separates out religious beliefs from criminal acts, the answer is that the Judge does it. Here is how Judge Wasserman did it in the pretrial phase of the Rex Fowler murder case:
..."Someone's religion has never been an issue in my courtroom and it won't be in this case," said Adams County District Judge Francis Wasserman...

Prosecutors asked Wasserman today if he was going to quiz prospective jurors about their knowledge of the Church of Scientology.

Wasserman said he would not, noting Fowler's conduct, which may have led to Ciancio's murder is the key issue of the case, not Scientology.

"Why he gave the money to the church is no concern," Wasserman said. "Whether he gave because he likes their buildings or whether he likes Tom Cruise​, is not the issue."
ref: http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_17402680

/////
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

User avatar
'Alert'
Posts: 5222
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: Bondi Beach
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside

Post by 'Alert' » Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:13 am

Tenor wrote:
Scn is not, IMO, an ideology, but a science.
Orly?

I say that because your understanding/perception/point of view of 'scientology' is subjective per doctrine
The beauty of "science" is, that it extends beyond those two words of "it works" and is quantifiable. Whereas 'scientology' as a subject, is no more quantifiable than blurting out the words "it works" and have another 'agree' with you in an attempt to 'create' a 'reality'/'actuality'.

'Reality' or 'actuality' by way of 'agreement' makes for the flimsiest and easiest disproved 'reality'/'actuality' there is, as it only takes one person to not agree and send said 'reality'/'actuality' into 'vanishment'.

Moar than 60 years have passed since lrh trotted out his "discoveries". Yet, his claims then are no more quantifiable today beyond saying "scientology works".
"If anyone talks about a "road to Freedom" he is talking about a linear line. This, then, must have boundaries. If there are boundaries there is no freedom." - Dianetics 55

User avatar
operatingwog
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside

Post by operatingwog » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:38 am

'Alert' wrote:
Tenor wrote:
Scn is not, IMO, an ideology, but a science.
Orly?

I say that because your understanding/perception/point of view of 'scientology' is subjective per doctrine
The beauty of "science" is, that it extends beyond those two words of "it works" and is quantifiable. Whereas 'scientology' as a subject, is no more quantifiable than blurting out the words "it works" and have another 'agree' with you in an attempt to 'create' a 'reality'/'actuality'.

'Reality' or 'actuality' by way of 'agreement' makes for the flimsiest and easiest disproved 'reality'/'actuality' there is, as it only takes one person to not agree and send said 'reality'/'actuality' into 'vanishment'.

Moar than 60 years have passed since lrh trotted out his "discoveries". Yet, his claims then are no more quantifiable today beyond saying "scientology works".
To make the point (s)he's making about scn being amoral, Tenor doesn't have to maintain that it's a science. Just that it doesn't supply a morality. (If this is not properly understood, (s)he claims, people can turn an absence of morality into a morality with horrifying consequences (CoS).)

Regarding Tenor's claim that scientology is a science. This needs arguing. And on the face of it, it's going to be hard to establish.

It doesn't seem like scientology doctrine or practise much resembles the established knowledge or the practise either of accepted sciences like physics or biology or of contested sciences (sciences whose scientific status is debated) such as sociology or psychology.

A while ago I posted Karen#1's account of how LRH came up with the purif. ( viewtopic.php?f=9&t=34847 ) Her account seemed to be that it came about through his loving nature and through the fact that he turned 100% of his attention units to the problem of a pc who couldn't concentrate due to drug use. The idea that drug residues could be "sweated out" just seemed to pop up in LRH's bonce, without any empirical research to support it. And it seems to be maintained in scientology in disregard of the scientifically known facts about drug residues and the mechanisms of sweating. This doesn't look much like a way of going about things which deserves the honorific "science".
“These guys are crazy. And all of this shit is straight out of the L. Ron Hubbard playbook. That’s their scriptures. They say they’re not a turn-the-other-cheek religion. No. They’re a knock-you-down-and-kick-you-in-the-balls religion.” Jason Beghe

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10387
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecut

Post by Wieber » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:43 pm

In the justice system in the USA a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence of a crime and evidence that connects a person to that crime as a perpetrator is what proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Generally speaking the harder the evidence the more reasonable doubt diminishes.

Eye witness testimony is soft evidence. Reasonable doubt can be established with contrary eye witness testimony. In such a case bringing in policy letters, bulletins, directives, etc. may possibly be useful to establish that a contrary eye witness may be following directives to perjure self.

Lawyers working for scientology would very much like that because it distracts from the allegations of abuse or crime and it prolongs the progress of a case. Extending the time taken for a trial is a common tactic for defending a person accused of a crime.

As to the thread's question, cause of abuse isn't necessary if there is hard evidence of abuse.

Motive may be a useful tool for investigation but motive isn't evidence.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecut

Post by Demented LRH » Thu Dec 08, 2011 2:57 pm

Knowledge of the cause of an abuse is of great help to the prosecutorial team. However, this is not a requirement for starting an investigation of the abuse.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside

Post by Demented LRH » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:00 pm

'Alert' wrote:
Tenor wrote:
Scn is not, IMO, an ideology, but a science.
Orly?

I say that because your understanding/perception/point of view of 'scientology' is subjective per doctrine
The beauty of "science" is, that it extends beyond those two words of "it works" and is quantifiable. Whereas 'scientology' as a subject, is no more quantifiable than blurting out the words "it works" and have another 'agree' with you in an attempt to 'create' a 'reality'/'actuality'.

'Reality' or 'actuality' by way of 'agreement' makes for the flimsiest and easiest disproved 'reality'/'actuality' there is, as it only takes one person to not agree and send said 'reality'/'actuality' into 'vanishment'.

Moar than 60 years have passed since lrh trotted out his "discoveries". Yet, his claims then are no more quantifiable today beyond saying "scientology works".
I agree with you completely. However, we need a separate thread for this discussion.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside

Post by caroline » Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:52 pm

J. Swift wrote:
operatingwog wrote:There are no such Bible verses. Offences of sexual abuse (allegedly) conducted by Christian pastors are not mandated by their religion.
You obviously don't know the Bible. We can start another thread on how Christians use specific verses to justify genocide, war, slavery, murdering doctors who perform abortions, sex with minors, beating women and children, etc. Parts of the Bible are far more violent and brutal than anything in Scientology. There are Christians who argue that they are above man's law and only need to obey God's law.
(If it were the case that Christianity mandates sexual abuse then this obviously would be relevant.)
You are naive on this point as well. Mormon polygamists argue that they are above human law and the Bible clearly allows them to have young girls as wives. They argue that it is not sexual abuse but is rather marriage. This is why the court focuses on the law and not their state of mind or religious beliefs.
curiosity wrote:Because of recent scandals, global in scope, complaints of sexual abuse of children by pastors are (one hopes) unlikely to be disregarded because they are not considered credible. A part of curiosity's initial point was that some complaints of scientology abuse may not initially be accorded similar credibility, and that showing the relation between the alleged abuses and scientology scriptures may be important for this reason. Many of these stories sound utterly outlandish and are completely outside the experience of most wogs. That means that the policies could be very important to provide a foundation for believing that such events are really happening, especially in the face of denials.
Look at the flood of Media on Scientology in the past six years! Who is not taking reports on abuse in Scientology seriously? That sounds like a contrived PR line on your part.

*****
Caroline: I realize that you and Gerry are lawyers and legal experts as evidenced by Gerry's series of stunning legal victories against the Church of Scientology.

Seriously, Caroline, I consider Gerry to be a pathological liar. Furthermore, Gerry does not have the courage or decency to come on OCMB and debate me or anyone else. As Gerry is unwilling to debate, I will disregard everything you post on him. I think you and Gerry are malicious ideologues who spew venom 24/7.

Gerry: Why are you afraid to come online here at OCMB to debate your critics? Stop hiding behind Caroline! Why are you making her do your dirty work for you?

//////
Moderator created a new thread "Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecute?" and moved this post of J. Swift's over from "Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside."

Swift's conscienceless, hurtful lying here, one item in a black PR campaign the moderators have let stand and encouraged, has nothing to do with the subject the moderator gave her thread.

That this post is not seen as a personal attack confirms that a new OCMB standard has been set, which serves Scientology's purposes against its wog victims. Scientology doesn't care if these posts are dustbinned because they will still show up in search engines. It is too late to delete the black PR on Gerry and me. It has to be dealt with with more exposure, and confrontation with the perpetrators and their facilitators.

Of course law enforcement must know the cause of abuse to prosecute. What a ridiculous question.

Edit: It is generally considered, in most usages, and certainly Law and Order, that law enforcement doesn't prosecute but the prosecutors do. So the question could more properly, but no less ridiculously, be "Must prosecutors know the cause of abuse to prosecute?"

There are straw causes or otherwise irrelevant causes of crimes that prosecutors don't need to know. They must, however, know a cause. Abuse without a cause is illusion.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
operatingwog
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecut

Post by operatingwog » Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:53 pm

caroline wrote:Moderator created a new thread "Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecute?" and moved this post of J. Swift's over from "Re: Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside."

Swift's conscienceless, hurtful lying here, one item in a black PR campaign the moderators have let stand and encouraged, has nothing to do with the subject the moderator gave her thread.

That this post is not seen as a personal attack confirms that a new OCMB standard has been set, which serves Scientology's purposes against its wog victims. Scientology doesn't care if these posts are dustbinned because they will still show up in search engines. It is too late to delete the black PR on Gerry and me. It has to be dealt with with more exposure, and confrontation with the perpetrators and their facilitators.
I'd just like to express my sympathy towards caroline for the attacks she has recently been subjected to -- and to Gerry Armstrong, who is also routinely vilified on these boards.

I do not know if Swift (and to a lesser extent Dorothy) are deliberately forwarding an agenda, or whether his (their) motivation(s) are personal. Either way it comes across as disgusting; and aside from that it is disruptive when every topic is taken to be an occasion to attack Gerry Armstrong and caroline.

People have recently objected to certain issues and questions being raised (or being raised in the way they have been) because they have perceived this as disruptive to the board and as amounting to the hounding of Karen. There may or may not be justice in these concerns. But they seem disproportionate to me, having been raised at the same time as a really vicious and nasty attack has been going on against the characters of caroline and Gerry Armstrong. This really is blatant and deliberate hounding, without even the pretense of an honourable intention, and can only be meant to hurt and to cause reputational damage.

Anyway that's my view as a relatively new poster on OCMB. I just wanted to express my solidarity with caroline and through her with Gerry Armstrong.
“These guys are crazy. And all of this shit is straight out of the L. Ron Hubbard playbook. That’s their scriptures. They say they’re not a turn-the-other-cheek religion. No. They’re a knock-you-down-and-kick-you-in-the-balls religion.” Jason Beghe

User avatar
I'mglib
Posts: 5753
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecut

Post by I'mglib » Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:18 pm

Caroline, you are correct that a personal insult slipped by that isn't allowed. The mods don't always see every line of every post. The post will be corrected or dustbinned. Use the report button to alert mods of personal insults.
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecut

Post by caroline » Thu Dec 08, 2011 9:07 pm

I'mglib wrote:Caroline, you are correct that a personal insult slipped by that isn't allowed. The mods don't always see every line of every post. The post will be corrected or dustbinned. Use the report button to alert mods of personal insults.
What J. Swift wrote arrived on my screen as something different from a "personal insult," but okay.

The error was not a failure of someone to use the report button, but rather that a moderator moved a post to a thread you started, supposedly without reading the post. I think moderators should read every line of the posts they move around to determine whether or not they're even necessary to move, and if so, where.

It has generated predicted confusion to split off or invent threads and mincemeat meaningful discussions in order to serve the regressive sentiments of people with abysmal willingness to discuss what is meaningful.

Putting aside Swift's black propaganda, what does his antichristian take or a media flood have to do with whether or not law enforcement, or prosecutors, must know the cause of abuse to prosecute?

While we're at it, tamasin's post in the Discussion of Abuses at Int Base, Riverside thread that was removed as "Off topic unecessary," is instructive about fascism, which is what Scientology, the organization perpetrating the abuses at Int Base, is. She obviously gave the issue her sincere thought. It is observed that tamasin sp's post contains something of a defense of Gerry Armstrong. But it is not a post that was either off topic or unnecessary, and she should not have been dustbinned. Please read what she wrote.
tamasin sp wrote:Fascist:
A supporter of a form of government characterized by the merging of business leadership and the state, rigid one-party rule by the extreme right-wing emphasizing strong centralized power, with militarism, an aggressive nationalism, and the suppression of all opposition.

Key elements of a fascist state were exhibited both in Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany.

Fascism By The Numbers:
1) Corporate Dominance of Law and Society
2) Military Supremacy in Funding and Policy
3) Reckless Nationalism in Foreign Affairs
4) Suppression of Organized Labor
5) Unification By Fear and Hatred
6) Expansion of Prisons and Prison Sentences
7) Usurpation of Power and Authority
8) Abuse of Human Rights at Home and Abroad
9) Religious Zealotry in Government and Military
10) Alliance with a Tightly Controlled Mass Media

The following statements illustrate the fascist mindset:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering, Sr. Advisor to Adolph Hitler

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly…it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." -- Joseph Goebbels, Senior Advisor to Adolph Hitler

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascist

And, your referring to Gerry Armstrong?Even though Gerry took the money, he still spoke out and continues to do so to this day.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10215
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Re: Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecut

Post by J. Swift » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:33 am

Caroline, in my opinion the central problem you and Gerry have is that you morphed Gerry's legal case into a quasi-religious ideology that I call the Armstrong Agenda. Your agenda relies on propaganda, untruths, and fascism as its chief weapons:

1. You and Gerry certainly have no problems constantly and maliciously attacking those you deem to be your enemies. However, when those you attack choose to respond in kind you and Gerry reflexively accuse them of running a Black PR program or being part of some Black Scientology Op or conspiracy against you.

2. Gerry uses his blog to make personal attacks on me, Dorothy, and others. Gerry makes himself impervious to criticism on his blogs. Gerry is quite happy to criticize his detractors and engage in personal attacks from the safety of his blogs, but he will not engage his detractors in an open forum such as OCMB or ESMB. Who does it help when Gerry refuses to debate?

3. You and Gerry use Gerry's created "Mytho-Legal Epic" of his lawsuit with the Cult as a sword and shield, i.e. you and Gerry can act righteous and pontificate to others in terms of Gerry's self-declared status as prophet but you also, as Dorothy trenchantly observed:
make passive-aggressive attacks on anyone not “in concert” with Gerry. Or these things fly over your head. They do not come right out and say it, rather they insinuate anyone not in lock step with them is OSA or part of a Loyalist Op sent out to Dead Agent them
4. You and Gerry use the language of Hatred and Propaganda by calling Indie supporters "Collaborators." I find this term highly insulting and derogatory. The use of this term also shows the Armstrong double standard: You and Gerry can attack in hateful ways but when attacks are returned you recoil into the Victimhood and scream persecution, collaborators, Loyalist Ops, etc. at your opponents. Yours is a well-honed "attack the attacker" approach.

5. You and Gerry bristled when I called Gerry a liar. However, you and Gerry freely and constantly call me a liar and call the Indies liars. Again, a double standard. When you and Gerry call people liars it is justified and you can do it all you want. When Gerry is called a liar, however, it is a personal attack, Black PR, a Loyalist Op, the work of Collaborators, and a conspiracy. IMO, you and Gerry can dish it out but you don't like to take it.

I have challenged Gerry on the factual merits of what he says. I have found that some of what he has written about his legal case is not true or even accurate. I did this, Caroline, after you made some remark to me a few years ago that I needed to "lurk moar" on Gerry's website. I read Gerry's website extensively and discovered that much of what Gerry wrote was inaccurate.

Because Gerry is a high level critic, I had uncritically accepted for years that what he had written was the gospel truth. Imagine my shock, then, when I discovered that Gerry had instead offered the Critics Community his highly distorted version of events that is not congruent with the Court records or even former Apollo Crew:

For example, Gerry claims he was the Legal Officer and the Intelligence Officer on the Apollo. There were no such posts on the Apollo according to Karen#1 and Mike Rinder. Why has Gerry embellished his resume?

The California Court has repeatedly rejected Gerry's argument that Scientology was at fault for his breach of contract. Why does Gerry refuse to accept the Court's ruling?


/////
Last edited by J. Swift on Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:36 am, edited 6 times in total.
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Must law enforcement know the cause of abuse to prosecut

Post by caroline » Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:11 am

J. Swift wrote:For example, Gerry claims he was the Legal Officer and the Intelligence Officer on the Apollo. There were no such posts on the Apollo according to Karen#1 and Mike Rinder. Why has Gerry embellished his resume?
For a malevolent purpose – to black PR Gerry as an embellisher of his resume -- you assume or invent facts of which there is no evidence. Please identify where Karen and Mike Rinder stated that Gerry was not the legal officer or intelligence officer on the Apollo, or where they stated that there were no such posts on the ship. If they stated this to you orally, please say what exactly they stated, and when.
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.

Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests