Category Archives: PI reports

ENEMIES OF SCIENTOLOGY DEPOPULARIZED TO THE POINT OF TOTAL OBLITERATION

Attached is a 2006 publication of the church of Scientology International.  It details the statistics of the Invest (Investigations) Bureau (the espionage and intelligence branch of Scientology’s dirty tricks and propaganda arm, Office of Special Affairs).   It carefully measures Scientology Inc’s accomplishment of the aims of Scientology as explored recently in several posts. The quality of the lives of the dozens of staff of OSA Invest are determined by whether these statistics are uptrending week to week or whether they are downtrending.  If the statistics are uptrending the staff member is not punished and is sometimes rewarded. If the statistics go downward, the staff members responsible can lose pay, lose eating or sleeping privileges, and be made to perform hard manual labor (in addition to a full work schedule) in order to make good with the group.  All of these statistics are carefully designed to add up to the ‘valuable final products’ of the Investigations Bureau, one of which is: ENEMIES OF SCIENTOLOGY DEPOPULARIZED TO THE POINT OF TOTAL OBLITERATION.

Note well that one of  the first Hubbard references that these statistics are based upon per the publication itself is ADVICE 27 Mar 1972 COUNTER ATTACKS TACTICS.  We have explored the implications of that publication before, e.g. ‘Standing one’s ground’,  and no doubt will do so again in the future.  It explicitly states that when you cannot shut up a whistleblower by costing him or her their job you then effectively attack that which he or she most values (in most cases, that means spouses, children and other family members of the target).  If there was any doubt that it is currently enforced, you see it here prominently highlighted in modern OSA context.

Investigations Statistics Issue

Bare-Faced Messiah by Russell Miller

Russell Miller’s book is finally going to be published in the U.S. apparently.  An interview with Miller was posted on Tony Ortega’s blog this morning.  I read the book last year.  I actually thought I had read it back in the eighties when it was published.  After all, I helped direct and coordinate the abusive litigation tactics that drove his U.S. publisher into dropping the project.  When I read the book, I recognized that in fact I had never read it all those years back.  It was lingering cult delusion that made me think I had.  In the eighties I had only read summaries and ‘dead agent’ packs compiled by Office of Special Affairs.  Even in the past couple years I have referred to Miller as a propagandist; that was before actually having read the book.  What I found remarkable about the thorough read I did was how balanced and even-handed Miller was about L. Ron Hubbard. It is not a wholesale condemnation.  While I don’t attest to the accuracy of all his facts, for the most part the book covers a lot of irrefutable history pretty accurately.

As Miller noted in his interview, the nature of the legal attacks upon the book, similar to the defenses in Rathbun v. Miscavige incidentally, revolve around strained (read invented) intellectual property rights theories.  If the book were inherently dishonest there would have been claims based on defamation theories.  But as we have noted previously, to Scientology the purpose of the suit is to not to win, but instead to harass.

Mr. Miller makes reference to a profanity-laced Scientology outburst about the book during the legal proceedings.  The actual quotation is interesting.  It is a quotation from the deposition of Norman F. Starkey, then executor of the estate of L. Ron Hubbard.  It appears in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York Opinion:

2. Norman Starkey, the Executor of Hubbard’s estate who licensed plaintiff to exploit the Hubbard copyrights stated in his deposition: “That scum bag book is full of bullshit, man, and you know it. It is full of bullshit…. goddam, fucking bullshit.” (Gready Aff.Exh. A, p. 94.)

If you think that language is strong, you should have heard Miscavige’s reaction to Starkey nearly blowing millions of dollars of litigation fees on that one infantile, albeit honest, outburst.  One of the most remarkable feats in the litigation was overcoming that clear evidence that the real  Scientology complaint about Miller’s book was that it did not like the facts being aired, and not that it was suffering any harm by having copyrighted works quoted. But, again as Miller notes the U.S. legal system has some flaws, and Scientology has perfected the ruthless, if expensive, exploitation of them.

As to the man in the red sports car following Mr. Miller in Los Angeles, that in fact was the infamous Eugene M. Ingram.  Ingram made so much Scientology money by his aggressive, noisy investigative tactics that he bought himself two shiny new sports cars (a Mitsubishi 3000GT and a Lotus Esprit), one with gold-plated mag hubs.  In his inimitable style he wore loud, flashy Hawaiian shirts during his stake outs with those bright low riders.  When I reported on the flap of Ingram being so easily and regularly made because of his audacious ways, David Miscavige ordered that Ingram be encouraged to be even more loud and noticeable, ‘it’s supposed to be a noisy investigation, isn’t it?’  Incidentally, that is what ‘ensuring the orthodox practice of the scriptures’ that Scientology lawyers are paid so much to repeat interminably is all about.

I apologize publicly to Mr. Miller for my involvement in the investigative tactics designed to shudder him into silence, and the unlawful abuse of legal process to block publication in the United States and cost his publishers inordinate sums in other countries.

I encourage people to purchase his book once available and read it.  Not just because it will make me feel a bit better about my own efforts to suppress it, but because I believe it is essential reading for anyone involved with Scientology.

The Aims of Scientology: Part 4

references:

Aims of Scientology: Part One

Aims of Scientology: Part Two

Aims of Scientology: Part Three

How to obtain ‘humanitarian control’ by L. Ron Hubbard:

“All of a sudden somebody is jumping all over us in “Wango-bingo” and all itwould take would be a quiet phone call. That’s one way to keep order. That is an intelligence method of handling things. It’s not blackmail, because blackmail is demanding money and that has nothing to do with it. “You jump on us, you’re dead” — that type of material.

It follows this way: We start to expand an area and we instantly and immediately want protective information in that area. We may be able to coordinate who causes the unrest of the world against the channels that they would have in that area. And that tells us the most favorable protective information.

That is the formula. And the more we study the general scene, the more we can coordinate, how do these birds do it? And then we will find what lines they use and get protective information on the lines they use.

So, Mr. Big decides to knock us flat in Bongville. All of a sudden it cools by the simple reason that we already know that the head of the public health service at Bongville has three wives. What you normally do is leak it to him. Somebody goes out and has dinner with his daughter as a perfect stranger and says “You know, I would be awfully careful of jumping on those Scientologists in Bongville if I were you. You know somebody ought to tell your Daddy that there’s some wild rumor—of course, we don’t know what the truth of it is—that actually you have three mothers. And they know that over there.”

Our general world study tells us what we look into to find protective information.

If we keep this up it will eventually lead us straight to the top which will give us humanitarian control.

     Information is the keynote.”

(emphasis added)

- L. Ron Hubbard 1 July 1968, Information and Control

Full Scientology Office of Special Affairs Issue, Information and Control

Scientology Infiltrates Carnegie Mellon University

The following is a report from Invest Aide OSA INT (Office of Special Affairs International, the propaganda and dirty tricks arm of David Miscavige’s church of Scientology International) on dealing with Scientology critic David S. Touretzky – professor at Carnegie Mellon University.  Note that it is titled “DR”.  That stands for Daily Report.  There are dozens of these daily reports in OSA INT files on Touretzky.  There are hundreds of such reports on more effective critics.  There are thousands of these types of reports on those critics whom David Miscavige considers a threat to himself personally and who have withstood Scientology’s wrath over time.   Ask yourself: should United States taxpayers be subsidizing an organization that spends its considerable dollars on such hijinks?   And, what is with Scientology’s apparent predilection for inserting sex toys into their operations?

April 27, 2006

D/CO EXT OSA INT

CC: CO OSA INT

INVEST CHIEF OSA INT

DR – David Touretzky – 27 April

Dear Sir,

This is an update on Touretzky.

Feedback on Touretzky: Greenway claimed that the producer of the MSNBC show Touretzky was on a last week was impressed with Touretzky’s performance and wants to use him for any future shows on Scientology. Greenway said that she wants Touretzky to become the “voice of the critics” and not Lerma or Tory (she hates both of them). Greenway that the Church never leaves Touretzky alone.  She said that she never asked him about the dildo which some CMU students put up on a website. She thinks the Church made up the dildo invoice and sent it to Schwarz.

Greenway was told that it really looks like some disgruntled CMU student who has a bone to pick with Touretzky put up the website (a site by a “student” critical of DST).  Greenway insisted that it is done by the Church (Greenway is upset about the CMU students’ website and the dildo’s exposure). Greenway talked about how the Church has gotten numerous letters sent to CMU about Touretzky including one from Hillary Clinton asking that he be fired, but CMU still stands behind him because they don’t care what he does on his free time. (This is a falsehood as he does not perform all of his anti-Scientology activities during his free time and we have documented evidence showing that he is doing it from CMU).

Greenway said that every time Touretzky does something against the Church he sends the legal department at CMU a packet of information concerning his activities so that they are briefed when the Church contacts them about this.

Following are updates on the handling steps previously laid out:

1.           Get the NY PI to relay the article on Cohon and get the feedback from his media contacts about getting it printed.

The NY PI spoke with his contacts at UPI and AP. They have received the proposed article and said that they are going to research and then submit it to their editors. The PI reminded both of his contacts that Touretzky is [ deletion of salacious – quite apparently false – accusation], and then we are going to have another Columbine because of him. The contacts agreed and said they will get back to the PI about the story.

2.           The alumni to complete going through the records and find alumni they can trust to brief and activate on DST.

Another Scientologist alumnus was found. His name is Christopher Rath. He will be contacted and activated.

3.           Debug done on getting a resource on the chat room.

This prediction line has been debugged. We now have a person that is on IRC and he has set up a totally secure connection and the line is operational to log the chat sessions.  DST is still active on this chat daily.

4.           FOIA request project written and started with at least 2 FOIA requests filed.

Seven FOIA requests were filed with the NSF on people that are connected to Touretzky as they either worked with Touretzky in the past or are currently. The people are: Walter Schneider, Tai Sing Lee (CMU Computer Science Dept.), James McClelland (Psychology Dept & CNBC Director), Julie Fiez (Pitt Psych Dept), William Skaggs (Pitt Neuro Science Dept), Daniel Simons and G. Bard Emerntrout.

5.           Get out the new requests to NSF on the “desk audit” CMU did at NSF’s request on Touretzky’s grants and get out the new request for data on Scientology. (This is a follow up on a cycle that had been dropped earlier).

The new request was drafted and was sent to [deletion – attorney information] for ok. [deletion – attorney information] Two went out from the Church and the third one will go from a private individual.

6.        Get Freedom the rest of the briefing materials on Touretzky that is needed for them to put an article together about DST/CMU.

The materials were put provided to Tom Whittle who is researching and drafting an article on Touretzky and CMU.

7.        Get current students and parents of current CMU students located for the purpose of getting these parents briefed on Touretzky and willing to take actions.

No current CMU students or parents of CMU students have been found so far. The PI in Pittsburgh is checking with various contacts and comm lines he has to locate them. The PI has closed and started a resource who is a student at CMU who is doing a special training on computer systems at CMU. The resource is 43 years old and he will be used to befriend Touretzky, and find names of current CMU students who can then be surveyed to get their parents contacted and stirred up.

8.            Offensive postings continued.

BS continued to push her message about Jared Cohon condoning Touretzky.

9.            John Fisher (alumnus) meeting at CMU.

On Saturday alumnus John Fisher’s, was further briefed and prepped for his meeting this week with two CMU faculty members (Fisher was called to CMU to assist in so matters related to the university). Fisher was given a briefing pack about Touretzky and he would take up Touretzky’s actions with these faculty members and get them to agree to take action. John Fisher will be back in LA on Thursday morning and we will then get his debrief and work out the next action.

This is ok.

Ml,

Frits

Scientology Stalker

The individual in the photograph below was hired by Scientology Inc. to stalk my wife not too long ago.  I would appreciate it if folks would distribute this around interested forums asking that anyone who recognizes him to please provide me with the name and contact information for this individual, at rathbunmark57@gmail.com.  Thank you.

Scientology Stalker.  Identification requested.

Scientology Stalker. Identification requested.

The individual drives an old white Ford pickup truck (with red detail trim stripes) displaying the following decals:

IMG_1035

IMG_1031

IMG_1033

Rundown on Scientology Intelligence

The following is a firm corporate policy of all Scientology entities. It is applied invariably to those who criticize Scientology, its organization, or even its executives and staff who engage in unconscionable and even criminal behavior. It has been applied in this wise since the day it was issued in the year 1968 all the way to the present.  Note the requirement for regular, detailed reports.  A plethora of Scientology policy mandates that those reports are filed – and as noted in this one, cross-indexed – and retained for posterity (including for potential use in blackmail, see Scientology Literacy and Blackmail.)  There is no document destruction policy in Scientology, except unwritten (but firmly enforced) policy to destroy potential evidence when courts or law enforcement agencies indicate they might be interested in such evidence.

OSA Network Order                                                    16 October 1988

Execs

Invest Staff

Confidential

RUNDOWN ON INTELLIGENCE

(Originally written by LRH on 20 September 1968.)

I’m writing to you in the hope that by combined effort, we can bring some understanding into Intelligence.

First I’ll give you a quick rundown on how Intelligence works.

We have two main cycles as far as investigations go. The first is:

1. Some SP near an outer org starts attacking Scientology.

2. The Investigations Officer in that area cables or telexes his senior at International level and starts investigating the person behind the attack.

3. The Int level senior acks the report and expects to see regular reports on the SP being investigated.

4. A file is opened in both the outer org and Int level and the case goes on the CIC board as a project.

5. The investigation is carried on until the crimes are found and it is handed over to Prosecutions to get the SP put in a government accommodation.

Or:

5. The SP* gets scared and shuts up and the Int level senior directs the case to be dropped.

The second type of cycle is as follows:

1. The Int level senior, on going through the files, sees a possible source of future attack and directs an investigation to start on that person or group.

2. A file is opened and it goes on the CIC board.

3. Investigations Officer in that area starts investigating and we get the goods.

4. The whole thing is turned over to PR for action and exposure, or to Legal for prosecution.

Among these we have smaller cycles of action such as, “Get me a copy of such and such a book,” or “Was this SP ever trained in your org?”

At the same time all this is going on, Intelligence should be going through newspapers, magazines, etc., and taking clippings on medical, psychiatry, mental health, government, world finance and banking, oddball self-help groups and filing and crossfiling these to locate SPs. And cross-filing declared SPs in the area by connections and frequency of names, to see who the ringleaders are in that area so that they can be prosecuted for crimes. But an investigation is NEVER NEVER begun until

1) an SP attacks Scientology (threatens to sue, goes to his representative about us, etc.) or

2) the Int level senior orders an investigation to be started.

While Investigations Officers may investigate well, the main trouble is that sometimes they investigate the wrong things, such as:

a. Investigating someone who is not attacking us and who no one has ever heard of before, with no orders to do so.

b. Investigating public who have not attacked and who are more a job for Public Ethics, Registrar and ARC Break Auditor.

c. Investigating some nut who, for example, wanted to buy a meter to listen to Martians so he could pick up radio signals. This one would be a Public Ethics matter in the first place, as I can’t see a reason in the world why we should throw every nut we meet into jail.

d. Taking a request for information from an Int level senior, such as a request for a copy of a book, as an order to do an investigation.

e. Doing investigations on kooks and non-entities who are not attacking us.

Now, we are going in on psychiatrists and that IS a correct investigation so we expect to see reports on that. Reports would also be expected from an Investigations Officer when officially assigned to work on an investigation.

Although the above is all covered in policy, please get this straight with Investigations Officers.**

L. RON HUBBARD

Founder

* SP, or suppressive person.  A label applied to anyone critical of Scientology, its leaders, or organizations.

** Investigations Officers.  A position on the organizational chart of every Scientology organization across the world; responsible for using such means as this policy spells out to obliterate criticism in his or her zone of operation.

The Scientology Inquisition

David Miscavige and his Scientology Inc. have of late  taken to waving the flags of the American Nazi Party and the  Westboro Baptist Church.   They are spending huge sums in order to convince some that their own activity belongs in the same category as those august institutions.  They don’t even try to argue that their conduct is not outrageous or unconscionable in a civilized society. Instead, they claim it is their Constitutional right to practice retribution, terrorism and ruination upon those who refuse to relinquish their own First Amendment rights to speak and worship as they choose.

Regardless of their individual failures or successes in this expensive positioning endeavor, there is legal precedent that protects you should you ever be targeted by the Scientology Inquisition.  It is the decision of the California Court of Appeals in the original Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology of California case.

The following is a reprint of the particular section of that decision that deals with Scientology heretics and their treatment at the hands of the Scientology Inquisition:

B. Even Assuming the Retributive Conduct Sometimes Called “Fair Game” Is a Core Practice of Scientology It Does Not Qualify for Constitutional Protection

As we have seen, not every religious expression is worthy of constitutional protection. To illustrate, centuries ago the inquisition was one of the core religious practices of the Christian religion in Europe. This religious practice involved torture and execution of heretics and miscreants. (See generally Peters, Inquisition (1988); Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages (1961).) Yet should any church seek to resurrect the inquisition in this country under a claim of free religious expression, can anyone doubt the constitutional authority of an American government to halt the torture and executions? And can anyone seriously question the right of the victims of our hypothetical modern day inquisition to sue their tormentors for any injuries – physical or psychological – they sustained?

We do not mean to suggest Scientology’s retributive program as described in the evidence of this case represented a full-scale modern day “inquisition.” Nevertheless, there are some parallels in purpose and effect. “Fair game” like the “inquisition” targeted “heretics” who threatened the dogma and institutional integrity of the mother church. Once “proven” to be a “heretic,” an individual was to be neutralized. In medieval times neutralization often meant incarceration, torture, and death. (Peters, Inquisition, supra, pp. 57, 65-67, 87, 92-94, 98, 117-118, 133-134; Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, supra, pp. 181, 193-202, 232-236, 250-264, 828-829.) As described in the evidence at this trial the “fair game” policy neutralized the “heretic” by stripping this person of his or her economic, political and psychological power. (See, e.g., *889 Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444 [129 Cal.Rptr. 797] [former church member falsely accused by Church of grand theft as part of “fair game” policy, subjecting member to arrest and imprisonment].)

In the instant case, at least, the prime focus of the “fair game” campaign was against the “heretic” Wollersheim’s economic interests. Substantial evidence supports the inference Scientology set out to ruin Wollersheim’s photography enterprise. Scientologists who worked in the business were instructed to resign immediately. Scientologists who were customers were told to stop placing orders with the business. Most significantly, those who owed money for previous orders were instructed to renege on their payments. Although these payments actually were going to a factor not Wollersheim, the effect was to deprive Wollersheim of the line of credit he needed to continue in business.

Appellant argues these “fair game” practices are protected religious expression. They cite to a recent Ninth Circuit case upholding the constitutional right of the Jehovah’s Witness Church and its members to “shun” heretics from that religion even though the heretics suffer emotional injury as a result. ( Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, supra, 819 F.2d 875.) In this case a former Jehovah’s Witness sued the church and certain church leaders for injuries she claimed to have suffered when the church ordered all other church members to “shun” her. In the Jehovah Witness religion, “shunning” means church members are prohibited from having any contact whatsoever with the former member. They are not to greet them or conduct any business with them or socialize with them in any manner. Thus, there was a clear connection between the religious practice of “shunning” and Ms. Paul’s emotional injuries. Nonetheless, the trial court dismissed her case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in an opinion which expressly held “shunning” is a constitutionally protected religious practice. “[T]he defendants, … possess an affirmative defense of privilege – a defense that permits them to engage in the practice of shunning pursuant to their religious beliefs without incurring tort liability.” ( Id. at p. 879.)

We first note another appellate court has taken the opposite view on the constitutionality of “shunning.” ( Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church (1975) 462 Pa. 330 [341 A.2d 105].) In this case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court confronted a situation similar to Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York. The plaintiff was a former member of the Mennonite Church. He was excommunicated for criticizing the church. Church leaders ordered that all members must “shun” the plaintiff. As a result, both his business and family collapsed. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the action, holding: “In our opinion, the complaint, … raises issues that the ‘shunning’ practice of appellee church and the conduct of the *890 individuals may be an excessive interference within areas of ‘paramount state concern,’ i.e., the maintenance of marriage and family relationship, alienation of affection, and the tortious interference with a business relationship, which the courts of this Commonwealth may have authority to regulate, even in light of the ‘Establishment’ and ‘Free Exercise’ clauses of the First Amendment.” ( Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church, supra, 341 A.2d at p. 107, italics in original.)

We observe the California Supreme Court has cited with apparent approval the viewpoint on “shunning” expressed in Bear v. Mennonite Church, supra, rather than the one adopted in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, supra. (See Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., supra, 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1114.) But even were Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York the law of this jurisdiction it would not support a constitutional shield for Scientology’s retribution program. In the instant case Scientology went far beyond the social “shunning” of its heretic, Wollersheim. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology leaders made the deliberate decision to ruin Wollersheim economically and possibly psychologically. Unlike the plaintiff in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, Wollersheim did not suffer his economic harm as an unintended byproduct of his former religionists’ practice of refusing to socialize with him any more. Instead he was bankrupted by a campaign his former religionists carefully designed with the specific intent it bankrupt him. Nor was this campaign limited to means which are arguably legal such as refusing to continue working at Wollersheim’s business or to purchase his services or products. Instead the campaign featured a concerted practice of refusing to honor legal obligations Scientologists owed Wollersheim for services and products they already had purchased.

If the Biblical commandment to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to render unto God what is God’s has any meaning in the modern day it is here. Nothing in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York or any other case we have been able to locate even implies a religion is entitled to constitutional protection for a campaign deliberately designed to financially ruin anyone – whether a member or nonmember of that religion. Nor have we found any cases suggesting the free exercise clause can justify a refusal to honor financial obligations the state considers binding and legally enforceable. One can only imagine the utter chaos that could overtake our economy if people who owed money to others were entitled to assert a freedom of religion defense to repayment of those debts. It is not unlikely the courts would soon be flooded with debtors who claimed their religion prohibited them from paying money they owed to others.

We are not certain a deliberate campaign to financially ruin a former member or the dishonoring of debts owed that member qualify as “religious *891 practices” of Scientology. But if they do, we have no problem concluding the state has a compelling secular interest in discouraging these practices. (See pp. 884-886, supra.) Accordingly, we hold the freedom of religion guaranties of the United States and California Constitutions do not immunize these practices from civil liability for any injuries they cause to “targets” such as Wollersheim.

For further parallels between Miscavige’s Scientology Inc. and the perpetrators of the original Grand Inquisition, see The Scientology Reformation