Or by agenda. Or by program. Or by hatred. With these compelled actions, incidents are selected to serve them.



The issue that Dorothy, Swift, Karen, Rathbun, and a slew of Indies are pursuing is who are the "beneficiaries." The "benefits" the beneficiaries individually or as a group derive is debatable. But the "beneficiaries" have to be identified first.

The Scientologists, not Gerry, created the "beneficiaries."

They are very specifically identified in their injunction against Gerry and, inter alia, persons acting in concert with him. Dorothy, Swift, Karen, Rathbun, and the slew of Indies, and Innies, attack Gerry rather than simply acknowledge who and what the "beneficiaries" are. [The Injunction: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/ga/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/injunction-1995-10-17.pdf]

Such actions are antisocial and threatening. It is frankly threatening when people act over and over in this way without shame or remorse. And they are doing it over Gerry’s life and his defense against the Scientologists’ predations in and out of the legal arena for 30 years.

The Indies' ongoing abusive behavior in Gerry Armstrong's case shows a lack of regard for the type of human rights and religious reforms all wogs should expect without negotiation. In any case, talk of reform, or moving on up, or reconcilation of the SP class conflict, is meaningless without a good faith showing, which would begin with a recognition and acknowledgement of the nature of the SP doctrine.



Sure, the Scientologists can come up with a timeline in which they are not the "beneficiaries" in the injunction they created. Or come up with an essay that proves that the "beneficiaries" listed in the injunction are not the "beneficiaries" in the injunction.



Absolutely. Let’s have an opposing arguer who will argue that the "beneficiaries" listed in the injunction are not the "beneficiaries" in the injunction.

If the "beneficiaries" issue is resolved, which it already has been, then the meanness of people who have continued to attack Gerry about it, and willfully disregarded the documented facts and the resolution of the issue in order to justify such attacks, becomes a legitimate issue.

And that is where I’m at. Gerry is a long time victim of the Scientologists. The attacks on him at this point by the current Scientologists and their collaborators is as unconscionable as attacking Lisa McPherson. That he has been the Scientologists’ victim for 30 years does not mean that he is not hurt by their lies and black propaganda, and by the support his victimizers get from wogs who know better.

This forum, or its operators, has moved decisively to make Gerry and me enemies. I cannot pretend this hasn’t happened. Denials would be more meanness.

But regarding the issue of who "benefited," which was resolved in 1995 with the granting of their injunction, is who are the "beneficiaries." And then, who made the "beneficiaries" the "beneficiaries." And that would be the "beneficiaries."

Gerry did not write one word of the injunction. And it was obviously prepared by the "beneficiaries’" attorneys, Wilson, Ryan & Campilongo and Moxon & Bartilson, all of whom are also "beneficiaries." Mark Rathbun was over the attorneys at that time, and was a beneficiary. He still is.

What does beneficiary mean? Did they get money, or were they getting some kind of "justice," similar to an apology? is there a link to the legal documents?

Thank you!

Yes, there's a link in caroline's posting.

So anyone who "attacks" Gerry is a "beneficiary"?

^^ Any person or entity classified by the injunction as a beneficiary is a beneficiary according to the terms of the injunction. The beneficiaries are listed on page 7.

It isn't that complicated, if you're trying to understand rather than to misunderstand.

operatingwog, I don't see how this involves me other than somehow caroline insists that I acknowledge something. If it's stated clearly on p. 7 (which I read) who the beneficiaries are, then why is it important that I acknowledge this? Is it some kind of control issue? Like "do as you are told"? I don't get it. The beneficiaries are the beneficiaries, they're listed there. It's scientology corporate entities and their members, right? I don't see what that has to do with me, J.Swift, Karen or Rathbun? Lumping our names together like that seemed like standard LRH positioning tech to me. When I brought up the point that I thought caroline's claim that the Indies are beneficiaries in this injunction was ridiculous, she denied it and called me a liar. Yet that is exactly what Gerry says:


From: http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg ... 0260737b97

From the list on page 7, I don't see how the Indies or any critics here on clambake are included in the list of beneficiaries.

inb4LIAR!

I think when caroline says 'attack Gerry rather than simply acknowledge who and what the "beneficiaries" are' she probably simply means something along the line of 'come up with lots of smearing black PR rather than straightforwardly reading and accurately representing the injunction'. I may be wrong. You should check with her if you're in good faith about wishing to understand.


I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It's presumably intended to be offensive to someone. It comes across as childish and silly.

For someone who claims to not know what it means, you have certainly settled yourself on what it means. Do you do this a lot?

Operatingwog: the exact same message coming from three accounts or ten accounts doesn't necessarily give it any more strength. Your message has to stand on its own merits.

Sorry I meant to write 2012.

BTW she is doing great.

Opter

Darn. For the past two days, I postulated a hundred years to chill out.

Karen obviously is talking to a lot of people and is a "busy little lady". And some apparently are conveying her thoughts to the forums, so she still has a presence here.

Of course, a program that focuses troops on OCMB could include generating conflicting or otherwise confusing messages for us to focus on, try to figure out, and fractionalize over.

The black PR has been generated that certain people drove her away from OCMB and ESMB with "attacks." I know the purveyors of this black PR include me in this group. This is clear black PR for two reasons: Karen denies it; and there were no attacks. These facts have, naturally, made no difference to the black PR merchants.

Karen demonstrated her PR and technical training, particularly in her manipulation of our emotions.

I didn't notice anyone wanting to get into long debates with Karen. I didn't notice anyone wanting to debate her belief in the Tech or auditing.

I did notice some people objecting to a broad inaccuracy, which appeared to be deliberate, in her presentation of abuse in scientology -- namely the more of less total airbrushing out of LRH's role as perpetrator, as cult founder, and as scriptural source.

Is that "sword fighting" or is it simply a concern that Karen should communicate truthfully about the subject she chose to post on? If instances of abuse in scientology are presented shouldn't they be presented accurately and in their appropriate context?

Is this concern for truth really "frying other fish"? Is it really a distraction from "the most important thing that needs doing right now"?

Or is "the most important thing that needs doing right now" functioning to distract people from straightforwardly recognising and telling the truth about LRH and scientology?

I'm with Larry.

I hope everyone has a safe, fun and happy Holiday Season and a grand New year. I wish peace and happiness to ALL victims of scientology, including Karen, Indies, and all Ex-scientologists who have suffered over it. I'm looking forward to 2012 and I hope next year brings an end to the cruel abuse that goes on inside corporate/organized scientology. Let's all work together to make that happen!

I don't see in the link any specific facts about Dorothy, Swift, etc. Where / when exactly are they attacking Gerry? Are they beneficiaries? How?

I’m sad and disappointed that a kind of flame war between two groups, both being friends of mine, seems to have killed this excellent thread. There are points that we all agree on and there are objectives that we can all achieve together-eliminating corporate scientology in its present form. Karen poured her heart and soul into this thread and she should not have to denounce Hubbard and his Tech in order to be heard. I do not have much time for much of Hubbard’s Tech myself but others surely have the right to follow it where there is no abuse, coercion, etc. I'm pleased to read that Karen will be back in 2012. She is missed already.