Soderqvist1: the answer is obvious!

OK folks, here's the $64,000 question: What jobs do you think Mike and Marty were qualified to do when they left Scientology?

When I left in 1991, after having spent my adult life in the cult, I had a difficult time getting even a McJob. I spent a lot of time and money going back to school so I could get a decent job. I wasn't a senior exec though like Mike and Marty. What do you think they rather would say, "Armstrong is a real schmuck" or "Would you like Fries with that?"

Well... Marty????

I don't really see how Marty communicating, debriefing, making declarations and testifying helps Gerry with his legal problems with CoS. I haven't really looked at what this was all about until now and I admit I have only looked at the basic facts of the case. The basic facts being that Gerry settled his original case against CoS by receiving a pay-off of $800,000. Wouldn't Gerry's legal problems with CoS have ended at that point? Isn't that what "settled" means? The legal problems began again for Gerry when he violated the terms of that settlement. Later, after he was in a heap of poop for violating the settlement agreement, Gerry claims that the original settlement he entered in to was illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable. Then why did he settle, if that was the case? Apparently the courts disagreed with Gerry's claim that the original settlement was problematic, more than once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Armstrong_(activist)

So, how does Marty help Gerry prove the settlement agreement that Gerry entered into with CoS where he was paid the 800K, is illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable? It seems to me that would be something a lawyer would have to either prove or disprove, based on what the law is or isn't. All the stuff that happened later stems from the original settlement and Gerry's violation of it. I do not see how Marty truthing out with what he knows about how dirty CoS is, changes the basic facts that would make a difference for Gerry. Access to testimony and evidence of the dirty character and and record of CoS is easily accessed, without any "help" from Marty. In fact, it is the very record CoS has of Fair Gaming people that helped get Gerry awarded the 800K in the first place.

Thank you. I didn’t know this. Can you please provide that testimony and evidence of the dirty character and record of Scientology that you say is easily accessed.

I realize you’re saying that the access to that specific testimony and evidence is what it is that you’re actually saying you can easily access. I imagine that once the access is easily accessed it could be a different degree of difficulty.

In any case, for a number of legal defenses and claims against Scientology and Scientologists for both Gerry and me, I really could use right now that testimony and evidence it seems you’re saying you can easily access.

Obviously Marty’s testimony and evidence regarding evals, programs, missions, projects, targets, orders, actions, reports, meetings, conversations and all other communications regarding Gerry are part of the testimony and evidence of the dirty character and record of Scientology. So as a top priority, please provide that specific testimony and evidence of Marty, or the access to it that you say is easily accessible. That way we won’t have to continue to try to get his help, which you clearly don’t want us to do.

Thanks in advance.

Oh C'mon.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientolog ... gal_system

There are court records referenced from the above page which you can access. Did you really need me to find that for you? Scientology's abuses of the legal system and litigious character are common knowledge for us critics. Why do you need Marty to prove it for you? You seem like you are just evading my questions. Are you?

Caroline, I'm not attacking you. If you do not want to answer my question, just think up some excuse, you seem creative enough. You write: That way we won’t have to continue to try to get his help, which you clearly don’t want us to do. WUT? I want you to get help. My point is, if Marty really is the kind of guy you say he is, based upon just a few of your own words:




Then what in the world makes you think he would ever help you? Just because you ask? Marty's going to have a profound change in character just because you post things on a "natter board"? Yet you have made your views about his character perfectly clear. If I wanted my hen house to remain safe, would I hire a wolf to protect it? How would you even know if he offered help he wouldn't end up sabotaging you? Which btw was exactly my opinion of what he did in the Headley cases with his stupid affidavit that all it did was promote the Marty line "It's all David Miscavige's fault". You can read what I wrote about that here on clambake if you care to.

This seems more like a show to me, a campaign of sorts. Either that or I just do not get the logic of it. But hey, who am I to tell you how to spend your energy.

The reason marty and mike are teasing about telling all and getting DM some prison time is that they are a part of this crime as well. The tech is all about fraud, it was created by a conman and perpetuated by a turd.

There is no date on Gerry’s letter, above. I have no idea if it was written in response to my questions, or posted from something he wrote earlier, re-posted now in response to my questions, or if it has nothing to do with my questions at all. It certainly does not answer my questions, and unfortunately, it inspires even more questions. Do we address Caroline, or Gerry on this thread? Is Caroline responding? Or Gerry? Or is no one responding? Confusing.

Anyway, here goes.


Sorry but I never heard of this. The words "logic" and 'logical" not in definitions of comm lag or insanity. And answers in scientology are anything but logical to me. If what Gerry means by “logical” is answering “yes” to “Do birds fly?”, I’m rolling my eyes. Because that is about the level of moronic “logic” that LRon’s communication training aspires to.

Mostly I do not see what Gerry’s long discussion of scientology’s “communication lag” has to do with his dispute with SMarty. Gerry writes:


Neither do I. I do, however, subscribe to common wog etiquette that says it is plain rude not to answer someone and ignore them. Then Gerry writes:


If Gerry attaches no meaning to length of time answering, then why make this point? Apparently it had enough “meaning” for Gerry to expound upon it quite a bit.


I still do not understand how Marty can "resolve" this, and it's just another call to resolve it. This is a “no answer” and a “no explanation”. The court already knows about scientology’s black PR and Fair Gaming campaigns and as I pointed out, there already exists evidence of this. According to Gerry’s own website, these “ongoing injustices” are CoS retaliation to do with his original settlement. Scientology’s Fair Gaming practices were very much tied up in the reasons for that settlement, which purpose was to "resolve":


How exactly was Gerry “coerced and tricked”? Is he referring to the fact that the 800K he accepted as a part of the settlement helped him to make the decision to sign the settlement agreement? In other words, he agreed to be paid to be silent? Then later he changed his mind and decided that being paid 800K equaled “coercion and trickery”?

I’m terrible at reading legalese, but when I read the settlement, it is very clear to me that Gerry must have agreed to be silent when he signed the settlement, unless he didn’t read it. It is a violation of one’s human rights to be forced into silence. But it is not a violation of one’s human rights if one legally agrees (per legal settlement) to be silent especially when one is also handsomely paid to be silent. Unless you can expound upon the details of the coercion and trickery leveled against Gerry, Gerry both legally agreed to be silent and was legally paid to be silent. It seems like the 800K which he received was meant to help Gerry to continue to be silent, to start a new life and completely move on from his scientology experience. That is the ultimate purpose of all of these large cash settlements. 800K 20 years ago would equal over a million today. Had Gerry remained true to the settlement agreement which he signed, would the CoS have continued to Fair Game Gerry? I think not, because the terms of the settlement were exactly what CSI was buying with their 800K purchase. Did Gerry not know that CoS would come after him with cannons if he failed to comply with the most important part of the settlement, his silence?

I guess after signing the settlement, and accepting the 800K, at some point later, Gerry decided he had made a mistake? Then he decided to violate the “gag” portion of the settlement, at which point CSI came after him with more lawsuits which were in fact within their legal rights, based upon the terms of the settlement. Is this really “Fair Gaming”? or is this what anyone who violates similar legal settlements might expect? If not, what is the difference?

You and Gerry seem to be claiming that the courts (after the settlement and Gerry’s subsequent violation of the settlement) sided against Gerry because of Black PR, but how do I know they didn’t side against Gerry simply because of his egregious violations of the settlement? The latter seems the more likely scenario.

Back to SMarty, who wrote:

I don’t know what Marty refers to when he says Gerry was willing to lie. Perhaps Gerry knows. Does Marty think Gerry signed the settlement, all the time lying about “agreeing” to its terms? I.E. Gerry took the 800K and never really intended to comply with the “be silent” portion of the settlement. I have often wondered what would happen to a person who took money from CoS and agreed to be silent and then was not silent. Is Gerry the ultimate example of what happens in this case? What are people to learn from this? Never agree to settlement terms with CoS that you are not willing to keep?

Marty says Gerry sold out. Did Gerry sell out? Gerry does not dispute it. If not, how does he explain walking away with 800K and signing a settlement agreement that includes being silent? Is that what Marty is referring to? Gerry says he was “coerced and tricked” into signing the settlement. I bring it up again because this is a very KEY point and important part of the Gerry story (IMO) that has not been revealed by Gerry. What is the coercion and trickery that the lawyer Flynn allegedly perpetrated against Gerry? Is it possible Flynn thought he did best by Gerry? Is there any link to Flynn’s comments about this? Gerry says Flynn, his lawyer, was also a victim of the cult. Did Flynn sell out as well, because the cult victimized him too? Is getting them to “sell out” (paying money/settling) another way CoS “victimizes” people? Did Lisa McPherson’s family also “sell out” when they agreed to be silent about their civil case settlement, the amount and details of which are also kept secret to this day?

In 1986, there was already an established history that the CoS used gag agreements as part of settlements to silence critics. I do not see how it was possible that Gerry did not know about this history, at the time he accepted payment in exchange for silence. http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyscandals/silence.htm

About this:


I admit I have the same difficulty with Gerry’s writing. Often times the sentences go round and round or digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand. I also have this same problem with the way Hubbard writes. Incongruous writing is nobody's friend! I think it would help your case if both of you learned how write more clearly and concisely, especially since what you do involves a lot of writing. An excellent book on the subject is Joseph M. Williams “Style, Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace” (2005). Here’s a quote:


Williams write: ignoring reasonable questions and objections does not garner much assent. It would work so much more in your favor if you treated the people who respond, comment and ask questions as actual people, and not as hecklers or suspected OSA-bots, as you often seem to do.

Anyway Caroline you’ve pretty much been ignoring me and I guess that’s your right but I really hope you will set me straight on all this, especially if I have it all wrong. I sometimes wonder if I'm crazy, am I the only one who has these nagging questions? Or do other people wonder about the same things? If other people wonder about these things, then I may be actually doing you a favor by giving you and Gerry the chance to clarify these points. If support is what you're looking for, it might help.

Gerry does dispute it. You are lying. But here's your opportunity: where is your evidence that Gerry does not dispute it?



I realize that Gerry is smart, that he doesn't write for the ignorant, and that pretended ignorance is a common pose among Scientologists and their collaborators and people who mean him ill. But you must provide evidence for this black PR on him.

Show me these often times where his sentences go round and round.

Show me these often times where his sentences digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand.

Show me what you call his incongruous writing.

And just so that you know what you are dealing with and what you are attacking, Gerry's writing, particularly his legal writing has been highly praised by competent attorneys. I understand you claim that you are terrible at reading legalese, but that does not excuse lying and black PR.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm dense but I do not see in the entire letter above, where Gerry disputes it. He does not address the issue at all that I can see. Instead, he points out what it is he thinks that Marty is doing to him, that Marty is demanding impossible things of Gerry. Perhaps he is. If that is Gerry's way of "disputing", fine. But it wasn't clear to me. I gather that based on your answer, that was Gerry's way of disputing. Perhaps this is also an example of the "clarity in writing" that I was referring to. How Gerry was "coerced and tricked" into signing the settlement in which it appears he sold out, is still very unclear to me.


In the letter above Gerry writes paragraph after paragraph about communication lag, with incorrect information about communication lag being about "logical answers" (which I could not find a reference for) and I do not see how that is congruent to the discussion, it being about:


Congruent to the above (to me) would be:

1. How this helps Gerry
2. How this helps Gerry's legal problems
3. How this would make any difference in Gerry's case.

What am I missing? I'm sorry if these answers are obvious and I'm just not seeing it. This is a follow-up to the question "What can Marty do about it? You have answered that question. I'm asking, because I have finally looked at the facts of Gerry's case, and I do not see how Marty doing the above, given the known facts about Gerry's case, will change Gerry's legal situation.

I have no reason to "Black PR" you or Gerry. I'm nobody and I don't matter to anyone. I'm just a person with a question, and I don't understand why I can't get a simple answer. I'm not "lying" and that is a cheap way of avoiding my questions imo. What am I lying about?

Should I just stop trying to understand this ongoing war between you/Gerry and R&R? Am I too ignorant (as you insinuate) to ever get it? Do I really seem like the kind of person who "pretends ignorance"? So far you insinuate I'm a dishonest person (on another thread), an ignorant person, and a person feigning ignorance. Which is it, all of the above? to me these are just clever ways of avoiding my questions.

Anyway, I leave it alone now. The ball's in your court. You can stop the personal attack and address my post (above), or continue to ignore me. I don't care either way. I asked what I wanted to ask for my own interest in yours and Gerry's situation, which is fading fast btw. Clearly you have a problem answering me period, because you never do. I thought I'd give it one last shot to better understand where you're coming from. It's clearly not important to you that I understand anything.

I do understand that it would make you feel better to have Marty's confession in hand about any OSA programs run on Gerry, like Marty's done with a few others. But I do not see how it would change Gerry's legal situation. Perhaps the answer is simply not something you would want to publish publicly (i.e., legal strategy). If that's the case I can understand that.

You should have written then, that in Gerry’s letter he did not dispute it. There are ten thousand other places where you will also not see where Gerry disputes it. Here, for example, a letter to Rathbun about Gerry’s manuscript and other things that people working for Marty stole from Gerry’s car. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/3304. And each time you could find and report back where Gerry in those ten thousand communications doesn’t dispute Marty’s false accusation that he sold out in something will be just as insightful and helpful as this instance is.



Again, there are a lot of places you can see that, and report back not seeing.



Instead of what? Clearly, writing what you think Gerry should have written. You are going to encounter a lot of instances in life I think when someone will not write something and you won’t find in whatever he or she does write.



That’s because that’s what Gerry was writing about. I’m not saying that I agree with you that he was writing about exactly that, because he was writing about much more than that; but he wasn’t writing about disputing Rathbun’s black PR that Gerry sold out. Gerry didn’t write what you wanted him to write because he wrote what he wrote.



Again, Gerry was not writing about disputing Rathbun’s false assertion that Gerry sold out. He was writing, as he stated in the subject communication, “to correct the idea that Marty has never answered” him. Gerry provided Rathbun’s answer and explained certain related matters to make it relevant and understandable to both interested wogs and Scientologists. Gerry didn’t dispute the falsehood in Rathbun’s letter that he had sold out. Surely you understand that Gerry could dispute Rathbun’s and all Scientologists’ black PR 24/7 and still not state his dispute in communications that are not about his dispute.



No, you gather wrong. Again, in his communication above in this thread, Gerry did not dispute or intend to dispute Rathbun’s lie that Gerry had sold out. That communication from Gerry was not and was not intended to be his way of disputing.



Yes, I think it is. You were not clear. You jumped to a ridiculous conclusion and based a lot of derogatory post-conclusion communication on it.



I accept that.




This is a total failure to show me what I asked for to support your black PR. You showed me no instance where Gerry’s sentences go round and round. You showed me no instance where his sentences digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand. You showed me no instance of him writing incongruously.

As I said, Gerry stated his purpose for writing that communication in the communication: “to correct the idea that Rathbun has never answered” him. Gerry’s comments about comm lags were congruous with the rest of his communication. The communication was accurate, timely, literary, and, given the nature and magnitude of the Scientology v. Armstrong war, written in good humor.

The relevant references regarding comm lags were provided in Gerry’s letter to Tommy Davis that he linked to in his above communication about Rathbun’s answer. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/archives/4827

Hubbard defined the communication lag as “the length of time it takes to get a logical answer.” (Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary); “the key test of aberration is communication lag.” [Hubbard, L. R. (1954, 23 April). SOP 8-D. Fifth American Advanced Clinical Course, (5ACC13). Lecture conducted from Phoenix, Arizona.]



I accept that. Gerry has the ability to see a fourth equally congruous opportunity, as he demonstrated.



I accept that Gerry does not have to ability to write what you think would be congruent to something else he wrote. That doesn’t mean, however, that what he wrote is incongruous. In fact, in this case, it’s not all that difficult to see that what he wrote is not incongruous.



I accept that. You wrote just today that you’re terrible at legalese, and now you’ve finally looked at the facts of the case.

First please correct the untruths you wrote that Gerry’s sentences often times go round and round, that often times his sentences digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand, and that he writes incongruously. Or support these false allegations with evidence.



I accept that.



Sorry, I do not believe you.



I accept that. It’s not ununderstandable to me.



No. But it is true that if you were honest I would be more willing to communicate with you, and it would also be a great deal more insightful, helpful and fun.



The closest thing in time is your three factual assertions that Gerry’s sentences often times go round and round, that his sentences often times digress with long discussions of topics that do not seem to have anything to do with the subject at hand, and that he writes incongruously. I asked you to support these lies and you delivered up little more than evidence you either had not understood what he wrote or were pretending to have not understood.

Once you deal responsibly with these lies, I will be able to provide others for you.



I can’t answer that because I honestly do not believe that you have actually tried understanding it. And maybe that’s what’s needed. Honestly try to understand.

You just said that you’ve finally looked at the facts of the case. But you don’t say what facts they are.

If you’re actually serious about trying to understand the Scientology v. Armstrong war, study the record. We have webbed adequate documents, and you have adequate intelligence, that if you honestly wanted to understand the war you could. You do not need to wait until Gerry or I answer whatever question it is you think will bring you to understanding.



No, it’s very easy to get. Rathbun and Rinder get it.



Yes.



No, I’d say 1 and 3. Which means that the problem is extremely easy to resolve and completely in your power.



And if I did what you want, you can go merrily on being dishonest and pretending ignorance. That doesn’t seem fair.



Good.



No, you have some false factual assertions to support or acknowledge.



You’re lying. I’m not ignoring you. Your lying doesn’t make communicating with you easy. But I haven’t ignored you, and am not ignoring you now.



I accept that. I thought it was maybe that important to you.



I understand.



No, you’re lying. I have answered you. In fact I answered you earlier today, and I’m answering you now. As I said, your lying makes communicating with you difficult and unpleasant, and I might quit answering you sometime. But the factual assertion that I never answer you is a lie.



That’s ludicrous. I already know that you understand a lot, actually more than you let on or present.

I’ve even done my very best in this communication to get you to understand a few more things. When you say it’s clearly not important to me that you understand anything, you are making an inane assertion, the truth of which you can’t possibly know.



It’s one of those unsolvable problems. You say you are terrible at reading legalese, which is to say that you can’t understand legal writings or documents, and obviously you present as someone who doesn’t understand, whether you understand or not. How on earth then can Gerry writing more legalese about legal matters to you do anything but add more of what you’re terrible at reading?

It seems to me, the solution to your problem, if it’s real, and if you really want to understand legal matters, or the subject matter, is to learn to read legalese and be honest in your reading.



No, I think Gerry was very clear about what Rathbun can do about it:

1. Communicate to Gerry;
2. Debrief to Gerry and his legal representatives;
3. Execute declarations that contain facts elicited in the debrief;
4. Make himself available to testify in any legal proceedings to correct the injustices or situations he helped make.

I know you say you can’t understand how Rathbun doing those things would help Gerry in his effort to correct the ongoing injustices that Rathbun helped perpetrate. It is so understandable to me that I can’t believe you. Surely you can understand that.

Marty Rathbun is a Scientologist and regards Gerry Armstrong as an "SP," or Suppressive Person. Rathbun has never forgiven Gerry Armstrong for 'Armstrong vs Church of Scientology', which resulted in the revealing of information which "besmirched the good name of L. Ron Hubbard."

"Besmirching the good name of L. Ron Hubbard" is a big deal to Marty Rathbun.

Gerry Armstrong was supposed to shut up and did not shut up. This also upsets Marty Rathbun.