NBC Today – Indies Day and Cruise/Miscavige Victimhood

See this morning’s NBC Today Show segment on Scientology Inc.

Janela Webster is true blue.

Rich Behar smokes Scientology Inc.’s victimhood play – a card fully predicted before Cruise/Holmes settlement.

By the way:

To clarify the segment with respect to Nicole Kidman, Scientologists should understand Nicole Kidman is not a suppressive person (anti-social personality).  Nicole Kidman’s only “crime” was to see through David Miscavige and spot his own suppressive person characteristics.  She never publicly attacked Scientology, nor even slighted it – despite its supreme leader infiltrating her household and driving a wedge between her and her husband.

With respect to alleged violation of privilege and privacy rights, despite attempts to buy it I have never disclosed information imparted in an auditing session, see e.g. Attempt To Buy Information.  See also that Miscavige’s conduct has been quite the opposite, Miscavige Violates Tom Cruise’s Confession.

Tonight’s NBC Rock Center ought to be interesting.

52 responses to “NBC Today – Indies Day and Cruise/Miscavige Victimhood

  1. The following footage may be of some interest to reporters out there.

    Get educated:

    • John Sweeney, time for Part III methinks. Don’t let the Panorama production team get worked up about the Cult’s legal threats. Fact is Miscavige abuse, violence and torture is now a matter of court record and the BBC is looking a little behind the game on this now. Other networks have reported the whole truth, why not the BBC?

  2. Excellent report! Very well done y’all!
    I like the way Mr. Behar refers to “the church” and “the organization” versus saying “Scientology” as a generality.

  3. martyrathbun09

    ADDED TO POST:

    By the way:

    To clarify the segment with respect to Nicole Kidman, Scientologists should understand Nicole Kidman is not a suppressive person (anti-social personality). Nicole Kidman’s only “crime” was to see through David Miscavige and spot his own suppressive person characteristics. She never publicly attacked Scientology, nor even slighted it – despite its supreme leader infiltrating her household and driving a wedge between her and her husband.

    With respect to alleged violation of privilege and privacy rights, despite attempts to buy it I have never disclosed information imparted in an auditing session, see e.g. Attempt To Buy Information. See also that Miscavige’s conduct has been quite the opposite, Miscavige Violates Tom Cruise’s Confession.

  4. Excellent job Marty. A very good and informative journalism, and great seeing you all in the Independence Day party. Can someone please post some videos and photos from the party?

  5. Wow, very impacting!

  6. Well done to all who helped to create this piece!!! It will not stop. These attorney’s for COS come across as unbelievable at this point. I have had several non scientology friends tell me that they can see right through all of this. Their impression is that DM is a very sick, sick man.

  7. Telling it like it is. Lil Davey is prolly needing lots of time on his copper rods these days. Makes my day. The media just don’t seem to want to go away on this one.

    Janela, you were great. Real. Impactful.

    Continuing implosion.

  8. Nice job Marty! Thanks.

  9. FCDC Class of 74

    It looks like Mr. Behar is progressing with his TRs ;-) I agree with Izhar some good news is appropriate at this time. Even in the public sector where violence and crap is the status quo we need information that is unenturbulated and uptone. I trust the picnic was so. Awaiting some content. Bill

  10. FCDC Class of 74

    My bad I forgot to say please. I sometime get insensative and forget the load you have. So, thank you for all you do. ps: if someone could email me if there is any acadamys in tne NE Bill

  11. Great segment, Marty!

    Janela, You did a WONDERFUL job!!

  12. Looking good Mr. K!!!

    Thanks Janela.

    The “Church” comes across with the credibility of a gangster attorney…..oh wait!

  13. Head on a pike doesn’t begin to exemplify the hell the midget is going through just now.

    Karma really is a bitch, bitch.

  14. I don’t know where to put this, but Bert Fields is suing the National Enquirer on a Tom story.

    Some of the accusations sound untrue to me too…until he gets to the Scientologist stuff. He calls them lies, when I know Marty has said they are true.

    Anyway, THR got ahold of the actual letter, which I’m posting a link to.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/Cruise%207.11.12%20L-American%20Media%2C%20Inc..pdf

    • Mel — that is a threat letter. Not a lawsuit. Doubt he will sue as the reverse discovery would expose a lot of things POB would not like coming out. He could sue on the very narrow falsehood that Suri was kept in a room with no windows for 5 months — but of course if he does that everyone will look at the rest of the story and claim that it is all true because they didnt sue over the other allegations. It’s a tough position to be in when there are things in a story that are wildly untrue, but other things you don’t like that may be closer to the truth or actually true….

      • Thanks Mike. You are of course right, it is a threat to sue. *sigh* I really must vet my words more carefully.

  15. A little more info from a comment post about the story.
    “Yes, even the New York Times has praised the skill of the writers at the Enquirer. Burt Fields is an ancient little shrimp who blusters and threatens to make a living. I’m sure the Enquirer is laughing in his face. Every word published in the Enquirer is vetted by Arnold & Porter, the swankiest law firm in Washington, DC. If Mr. Fields is such a fabulous lawyer, why did Tom Cruise completely collapse and agree to everything Katie Holmes demanded in less than a couple of weeks.”

    Burn!

    NE did break the John Edwards story when no one else would touch it; yet, they also print a lot of junk. However, by Bert sending a letter he’s given the story more attention than it otherwise would have gotten. He basically validated it. I’d have paid no attention; and, it wouldn’t be getting all this attention thru more reliable sites if he had just left it alone.

  16. On the above program, attorney for Tom Cruise submitted the following statement to NBC Today:

    “Rathbun’s statement invades the privacy rights of Cruise and his children and violates the law. Any communication between minister and parishioner is considered sacrosanct within their religion and under the law.”

    Is he right or wrong?

    • martyrathbun09

      wrong – he knows I am staying far away from any minister-parishioner privileged communications. Even if the ones I am talking to were within the minister privilege, they clearly meet the exception for child abuse.

      • So you are saying that the church of scientology staff members abused Tom Cruises two children?

        • martyrathbun09

          Higgs, you are out of here. Not only are you not listening, you are not reading and clearly you are not asking questions for the purpose of clarification. Adios.

          • I always know when I’ve asked the right question that gets to the truth because right after that, you kick me off. :-)

            I’d rather speak the truth and speak my mind and get kicked off as a result than spend my time agreeing with you and kissing your ass like the others do here, just to stay on.

            • Your idea of “speaking truth” puts you right in cult corner. Truth = lies. Lies = truth.

              No need to kiss anyone’s ass, I am sure your lips are permanently affixed to the posterior of he who shall not be named….

              • Mike I said:

                “I always know when I’ve asked the right *question* that gets to the truth.”

                Mike Rinder said above:

                “No need to kiss anyone’s ass, I am sure your lips are permanently affixed to the posterior of he who shall not be named…”

                You mean like how yours are permanently affixed to the posterior of one who lives in the Lone Star state who shall not be named….?

                • That wasn’t the sentence I was responding to. It was the one where you said you dislike kissing anyone’s ass other than he who shall not be named. You are very disingenuous in your comments. Selective in what you pull out and twist. I think you should start your own blog and you can comment away to your heart’s content there and won’t have to be in agreement with anyone ever — and you can “attract” those who are also not in agreement with anyone or anything. Should be fun for you and you can really knock yourself out.

                  • Mike, I don’t kiss anyone’s ass and I never have in the past.

                    Can you say that?

                    • I acknowledge you for the astonishing integrity you have displayed throughout your life. Whoever you are.

                      You are obviously a better man than me.

                      I admit I have kissed ass in the past and am doing my best to remedy that situation now.

                      And you are doing what exactly?

                    • martyrathbun09

                      This is Tim Higgs – he’s been relegated to spam folder.

                    • After reading this section of the thread, I began giggling. I don’t remember what the original question was b/c it became the “ass kissing” debate thread; it’s like the famous “Who’s on 1st” skit. Mike got it right though…everyone has done ass kissing at one time or another. Even if it’s their own ass about how wonderful they think they are.

        • If that’s what you call turning them against their mother… Marty didnt use that word, he simply described what he observed happen. You supply your own description. I would go along with your use of “abused”, but that’s just me.

    • Wow — maybe Bert should be taking a look at the church websites and Freedumb mag and taking up the cause for all those who have had their actual communications with their auditors plastered all over the internet.

      Bert, how about “confessions” — are they supposed to be sacrosanct? How about O/W write ups?

      How about the confessions forced out of people in the Hole after they were tortured?

      He could not really be taking the position that ANY and ALL communications with anyone if you are a minister of the church are sacrosanct…. That would be as nutty as saying there is no such thing as disconnection.

      • Mike Rinder said above:

        “Wow — maybe Bert should be taking a look at the church websites and Freedumb mag and taking up the cause for all those who have had their actual communications with their auditors plastered all over the internet.
        Bert, how about “confessions” — are they supposed to be sacrosanct? How about O/W write ups?”

        I agree, maybe he should.

        But how does make it ok for Marty to do something like that just because the church of scientology does it?

        Do two wrongs make a right?

        • Wow, the smell of musty underbridge dwellings emanates from your comment.

          Who said Marty has done anything of the sort.

          You would know if Marty was revealing real priest/penitent information. I was told stuff by Miscavige from Cruise’s sessions that the media would LOVE to hear. Miscavige used to laugh about it. And its not just me who heard this stuff from him. Believe me, you havent heard a peep of this from Marty Rathbun in spite of being offered $20,000 from the National Enquirer.

          Maybe I should go claim my $20,000 from them and tell them its information I got from Miscavige who used to watch the videos and read the ARFs from Cruise’s sessions. On second thought, perhaps I won’t. That WOULD make me no different from Miscavige and his creepy cult.

          • Mike,

            I agree, there’s probably a lot *worse* that he could have said about Tom Cruise.

            But as Tom Cruise’s auditor, should he have been saying anything?

            I can tell you this, if I was Tom Cruise and Marty was my auditor and my former auditor the went on TV and said about me and my kids that he said about Tom’s, I would feel hurt and betrayed.

            • That’s a funny position to assume — that because someone is an auditor they are no longer allowed to speak about things they observe outside of session? Is that really what you are saying? Or are you simply trying to attract attention to yourself by taking “contrarian” positions for the sake of creating an effect? A simple answer to this question would be nice for one and all to see.

            • atcause, you are stuck in OPP. Do you know what that is? Other People’s Past.

              That is one sorry assed place to park yourself.

              You can not confront your own past. You can confront someone else’s past. You park yourself there even though they have moved on. And you effort to drag them back there,

    • What an idiot question, “atcause”. The only thing they had Marty saying was what the kids were doing while Tom was in session – NOT what Tom said IN-session. NOTHING remotely confidential. No hint of abuse. Then the bullshit response from the church in hopes of making some people doubt the very reality they just viewed (a Miscavige specialty).

      • Then, “atcause’s” reality is so poor here, that the Miscavige response actually seems “reasonable” to him, so he wants to reinforce it. Make it “more solid” for everyone. WTF? Any ‘similars’ of your own?

      • Tim Higgs (“atcause” above) – for attempting to post the following at my blog, I say:

        [-UNDERHANDED-]

        —“The response was from Tom Cruise’s lawyer, not Miscavige.—
        [watch it again - both church and cruise lawyers were named there]
        —“That’s just Marty’s theory that everything is coming from his X best friend Dave.— [uh-huh - and you're in the know as to where Marty's theories come from...]
        “You have been drinking too much of Marty’s “Kool-aid”.—”
        [your blog is oh, so nice, but putting it into practice is oh, so challenging, isn't it?]

        Higgs goes on to compulsively foul-mouth me for failing to realize he was kicked off this (Marty’s) blog for divisive, off-topic, bait-and-badger (harrassment) and therefore “can’t defend himself”.

        Tim has a short, theetie-wheetie history in Scientology and he dares to pass judgment on Marty.

        Tim has apparently never had to:
        *scrape for meals on staff pay
        *sacrifice sleep, income and personal goals in preference to serving others selflessly to enable others to acquire Scientology
        *confront beings in psychotic breaks and pull them back from the brink
        [and this is just a short list of what I know Marty and I have in common]
        [and for how many years?]

        But we have a “self-serving” agenda here (???)

        So Tim, if you’d like to host your nasty comments on your own blog, I’ll be more than happy to spar with you there. I won’t shrink back – I promise. You’re also more than welcome to tear me up on my blog if you want to try to match wits without resorting to foul language – which I will never allow to post.

    • After reading thru this whole thread, I began giggling. I don’t remember what the original question was b/c it became the “ass kissing” debate thread; it was like the famous “Who’s on 1st” skit. Mike got it right though…everyone has done ass kissing at one time or another. Even if it’s their own ass about how wonderful they think they are.

      (Marty, you can delete this if offensive.)

      • Oh wait. I did post in the right place. It’s just the darn thread got so long that it ended up down here instead of in the “ass kissing” section at the top.

        Well, I guess I now have a subthread of “where did I post this?” to go along with the “ass-kissing” subthread.

        I leave the decision up to you Marty. If you think this will provide comic relief to the troops, I will suffer the embarrassment. Otherwise, please delete.

        AND I am going back up to the “ass kissing” section and try to get a post in there somehow!

  17. I wonder if anyone has asked the question: If “Mr. Scientology” (Cruise) can’t disseminate to his own wives, perhaps he’s doing something wrong? I would extend that to COB – If his own family cuts out – his dad, for crying out loud! and brother, and daughter – perhaps he is clueless about Scientology.

    Look, either Scientology doesn’t work, or these two guys have no idea about it. Since I know Scientology works, it’s the latter.

    Tom, report to cramming (Jim Logan and Marty would be good). Start with reading Marty’s book. You know you want to.

    Mr. David Miscavige, resign and quit committing present time overts.

    • I wonder if anyone has asked the question: If “Mr. Scientology” (Cruise) can’t disseminate to his own wives, perhaps he’s doing something wrong?

      That’s a good point. Most people tend to marry others who share their religious beliefs. I know for myself, when I was a single guy, I had a list of qualifications for Ms. Right, and at the top of the list was: “Must be a Scientologist”. In parenthesis it may have also said, “or is well on her way to becoming one.”

      It simply makes sense. Why would I want to make a lifetime commitment to someone who has a fundamentally different spiritual outlook than I do? That’s just setting yourself, your mate, and the relationship up for disaster, in my opinion.

      My wife and I are celebrating our 17th anniversary this coming Monday. The day I met her, she’d never heard of Scientology, but when we married just ten months later, she was fully on board. Still is :-)

  18. Janela – awesome interview. Sooo real. Sooo cathartic. That’s the power of honesty and the simple truth.

    Same for Marty – came across relaxed and sincere.

    As Steve Hall put it so well, in so many words, we now stand back and witness Miscavige’s ship just smashing itself on the rock of integrity.

    Oh – and a wonderful time at the Indy gathering.

  19. I love this … and have much to say but I’ll let it ride. :-)

  20. I think Nicole Kidman is one hell of a lady

    “To clarify the segment with respect to Nicole Kidman, Scientologists should understand Nicole Kidman is not a suppressive person (anti-social personality). Nicole Kidman’s only “crime” was to see through David Miscavige and spot his own suppressive person characteristics. She never publicly attacked Scientology, nor even slighted it – despite its supreme leader infiltrating her household and driving a wedge between her and her husband.”

    I am 100 % on board with you on that Marty

    I liked their bouncing of on eachoter as actors in the movies they did together.

    My socialist Boss (CEO at Atleliers MTW) at work loves Tom cruise as an actor. Me a socialist of a lighter collour red have the opinion Tom gets lucky with the scripts he is able to land.

    Did Anne Archer had a role in that ?

    I Miss her son so much.

    Tommy Davis where arte thou ? Anonymous misses its supreme Leader

  21. Janela, you were terrific. Thank you for adding your voice publicly to the long list of witnesses to Miscavige’s abuses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s