Tag Archives: bert fields

Tom Cruise – Hunkered in Miscavige’s Bunker

The Vanity Fair affair is not going to be pretty.   As folks are preparing for the Cat 4 or 5, I want the record to be crystal clear that I put Tom Cruise on notice more than three years ago that this was coming.

Tom Cruise Put on Notice in August 2009

You can check the history of this blog to see that I gave him every opportunity to consult his conscience and choose an ethical course.  Instead, he chose to hunker down in David Miscavige’s bunker.

A little word of advice to Tom from L. Ron Hubbard: paraphrased, it is never too late to trim your sheets.

Nazanin Boniadi represents the tip of an iceberg.

 

Cruise Counsel Bert Fields Works For Scientology Inc.

Tom Cruise’s nominal lawyer Bert Fields has taken to running interference for Scientology Inc.  First he took this creepy corporate Scientologesque swipe at Katie Holmes last week:

 We are letting ‘the other side’ (Katie and her team), play the media until they wear everyone out and then we’ll have something to say. – Fields statement to BBC News

Now that his de facto client David Miscavige (Scientology Inc. supreme leader and Tom Cruise best man) has apparently been worn out, Fields is actively flying air cover for Miscavige and Scientology Inc.  He is quoted in Radar Online as stating the following:

“Let me be very clear about this. The Church of Scientology played absolutely NO ROLE in the divorce settlement talks at all. Period.”

“The mere suggestion that the Church was involved in any element of the talks and ultimate settlement is categorically false. Anyone suggesting otherwise is just wrong.” see radaronline for full story.

The day before the Cruise/Holmes settlement, I predicted the settlment on this blog and that the quotations above would be the precise statement issued, Holmes v. Cruise – The End Game.

What I did not predict is that Bert Fields would stoop to become in essence the spokesperson for Scientology Inc. supreme leader David Miscavige.

I could have predicted it though.   I outed Fields for representing Miscavige and Scientology Inc. three years ago, to the detriment of his client in name Tom Cruise.

In August 2009, we documented here Bert Fields’ attempt to serve as Scientology Inc.’s censor in shutting me up, see Top Gun Flies Air Cover For David Miscavige?

At that time, I took the threat as an opportunity to put Tom Cruise fully on notice about the serial felonies his best man and best friend was committing day in and day out in the name of Scientology, see Top Gun and Hired Gun Put on Notice.

As Fields apparently had difficulty fielding that communication, I nudged him after several days of silence, see NUDGE.

Finally, Fields answered, remarkably failing to report compliance with informing his client to the facts I put him notice of, and instead delivering a passionate defense for the sociopathic conduct of Tom Cruise’s best man and best friend David Miscavige.  See For Whom Does Bert Fields Work? 

My response to Fields’ defense of Miscavige provided further facts about Miscavige’s criminal conduct and even Miscavige’s invoking of Cruise’s name to carry it out. See YSCOHB.

Fields’ did not respond.  Instead, he continued working for Miscavige and Scientology Inc. attempting to censor and silence Amy Scobee from exposing Miscavige/Scientology Inc. crimes.  See Cruise Missile or Scud?

Any media receiving such Scientology Inc. promotional tips as Radar Online apparently received from Fields would be well-served to study the links I have provided.  From them one could derive a number of important questions to ask of Cruise’s (or is it Miscavige’s?) counsel.

Holmes vs. Cruise – The End Game

The following is my opinion along with the facts I base it on.

The Cruise camp’s only three utterances since the divorce filing of Holmes were:

1) First, reports that Tom Cruise was ‘suprised’ by the filing and was ‘saddened.’

2) Next came a ‘source’ from Cruise’s camp expressing dismay that people would think Scientology had anything to do with the matter since Katie had nothing but wonderful things to say about Scientology.

3) Cruise’s attorney Bert Fields taking the incredibly childish swipe at Katie for allegedly orchastrating the international media storm of the past week.

2 and 3 above give strong indication that Tom Cruise is still listening to his best man, Scientology Inc. cult leader David Miscavige.   They both sound like vintage Miscavige.

As to the claim that they are so suprised because Katie only expressed ‘love’ for Scientology, that is right out of Miscavige’s well-worn strategy to use pressured, documented, positive utterances (called success stories) against former members in the following wise.  Success stories are required after every Scientology Inc service (counseling or study courses) in which the individual puts in writing how the counselling or course changed his or her life for the better.  Those succcess stories are the first thing that are mustered and organized for defense when a former member sues or speaks ill of Scientology Inc. to the media. Miscavige has Scientology Inc lawyers and hacks wave about previous success stories and claim that Scientology Inc. is shocked the person who wrote such stories has ‘suddenly’ had a change of heart.  Along with that comes their baseless, shrill charges that the person must have been ‘deprogrammed’ by ‘enemies’ with horrid, anti-religious motives.

As to #3, Miscavige and Scientology Inc can’t help but play the victim with  queer media conspiracy theories.  Has Katie Holmes made a single utterances publicly about the divorce in the past week?  No. Yet, the august, venerable Bert Fields snidely claims as a fact that Katie has been working the media against poor Tom.

Based on Miscavige’s white-collar-criminal/abusive-wealthy-corporation way of going about business of late, here is how I see Miscavige/Cruise dealing with this unprecedented public relations flap.

Well before the first court appearance, or next filing in the case, that could set off further media storms, aggressively and intensively negotiate the case to settlement.

Likely terms Miscavige/Cruise will obtain at an astronomical price (Miscavige may even need to dip into Scientology Inc’s war chest to help pay the price):

a)   Katie signs a document that indicates there is to be joint/equal custody of the daughter of Tom and Katie.  However, there will be a side agreement (that will sit locked up in their lawyer’s safes) that gives Katie sole custody, control over education, and some visitation rights to Tom.

b)  Katie signs a document that indicates that Scientology was never an issue nor consideration in the filing for divorce.

Miscavige and Scientology Inc hacks then make the media and their sources wrong for having allegedly jumped the gun to insinuate Scientology into the matter in order to bludgeon Scientology Inc, Miscavige and Cruise.

Miscavige, at bottom, loves the victim card and when his back is against the wall he always plays it, and plays it well.  He has, and will, pay untold sums of money to orchastrate the apparancy that he and Scientology Inc. were the victims.

The scenario I predict (buy silence at any price) is precisely what he did earlier this year when former member Debbie Cook testified that Miscavige ordered her to be tortured by associates (see post, Debbie Cook Tells The Hole Truth).  He has been doing it for thirty years.  The price to accomplish it keeps getting higher.  While the price will likely be in a whole new strata when it comes to Katie Holmes,  Cruise and Miscavige have plenty of cheese in their Scientology Inc. war chest to pull it off.

In the brave new world of Miscavige/Cruise’s Scientology Inc., image is the only thing.

Update: For those unfamiliar with the character of Miscavige, this just in from the BBC’s John Sweeney writing for the UK Independent,  Sweeney on Miscavige. 

UPDATE 7/9/12: Village Voice Acknowledges Accuracy of Prediction. 

DM: YSCOHB

Bertram Fields
Greenberg, Glusker, et al
1900 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA
90067-4590

August 26, 2009

re: Yours of August 26

Dear Bert,

I am sorry to interrupt your vacation, but I want to make sure you fully understand a situation you are clearly being lead to misunderstand.

In spite of your protestation to the contrary, it has become quite apparent you and your client are in fact working on a coordinated defense of Miscavige’s conduct. That you spent five of the twelve sentences of your letter extolling Miscavige’s virtues, while saying nothing in defense of your client speaks volumes.

You apparently chose to ignore evidence of Mike Rinder being battered on more than a dozen occasions and instead used Mike’s purported words uttered years ago in defense of Miscavige. I found that rather telling. That you did not bother to ask Mike – a person you have met and worked with on a number of occasions – despite my invitation to do so and my provision of his contact information – is informative of your client’s position. I know that a renowned attorney such as yourself would normally pursue such evidence with due diligence. Only in Miscavige’s world does an intelligent and thoughtful man like Mike become a non-person with the snap of the fingers.

With respect to your own client, by simply repeating the demand set forth in your original letter to me dated August 7 you have shown that you did not understand what I intended to communicate to you or that your client is under the control of Miscavige.

Your August 7 letter expressed the desire that your client’s name not be associated with me. I responded two days later by telling you that in order to prevent the continuing perpetration of severe and widespread violations of criminal laws and fundamental human rights – and to correct publicly spread blatant lies by Miscavige – it was necessary to communicate that relationship in order to accomplish my humanitarian objective. I provided evidence up through the year I left the Church with links to the accounts of fourteen other people who witnessed the same conduct at issue.

Bert, I only decided to make my knowledge public after reviewing a plethora of evidence – contrary to Miscavige’s PR line that I had perpetrated all of the violent and felonious behavior of his – that after I left, Miscavige’s compound made a sharp turn south towards Jonestown. Several former Miscavige insiders have left since I did. Most, if not all of them, have visited me to help recover from the emotional – and sometimes physical scars – that Miscavige inflicted upon them.

I have hard evidence that Miscavige’s response to my having left was to have the doors to the Hole (ref: St Petersburg Times series) barred and welded shut. He created a literal prison where the majority of the international managers of the Church of Scientology remained locked up for months, and in some cases, even years.

The incidents recounted in the St Petersburg Times Truth Rundown series are like a walk in the park compared to what came later. The Hole became a torture chamber. Literally.

I’ll share one incident I have documented that I believe is apropos to your misguided letter.

A couple years ago Miscavige strode into the Hole to make an announcement to the eighty to one hundred Scientology managers then incarcerated. Miscavige berated them for being far too light in their demands for confessions from three of his favorite targets for degradation, humiliation and beatings. They were Marc Yager who was once the highest ranking official in the Church of Scientology International, Guillaume Leserve the Executive Director International and Ray Mithoff the highest technical executive in all of Scientology. Miscavige informed the gathering that Tom Cruise would be coming to the Int base (the 500 acre compound near Hemet) the next day. This, of course, was taken seriously since the several hundred base staff members were busy that day on the Tom Cruise arrival preparation drill (which includes, incidentally, putting all staff through drills orchestrating every action they perform in front of, or speak in the presence of, Cruise).

Miscavige informed all of the members of International management that he had been telling Cruise all about how suppressive Yager, Leserve, and Mithoff had been to Miscavige personally. He told the executives that he had told Cruise how all other members of management were suppressive to Miscavige too because they refused to beat Yager, Leserve and Mithoff to pulps in defense of Miscavige’s honor. Miscavige said that Tom, as his best friend and most trusted confidante, had vowed to come to the Hole and personally “beat the living shit” out of Yager, Leserve, and Mithoff if the managers failed to do so themselves. Miscavige said that if they didn’t show evidence that they had acted, they all would be bypassed the next day by Cruise. The tantrum was accompanied by the usual ill-tempered and sadistic threats to the executives detailing what would become of them if Tom had to do “their job.”

In response, the mob rushed at the three targeted gentlemen. Fists flew and feet kicked into the three. They continued to pound until Miscavige’s deputy on site determined they had created sufficient evidence. That evidence? Fat lips, bloody noses, black eyes (and the deputy would not let the mob relent until each had two black eyes) and contusions over the faces and bodies of Yager, Leserve, and Mithoff.

Bert, if your client still wants to continue having his name uttered by David Miscavige to perpetrate these types of barbarities and at the same time enjoin me from simply stating a fact that I performed a religious service for him at Miscavige’s direction so that I might continue to lend a credible voice to end these atrocities, then save your firm’s letterhead and send me no more letters.

Instead, go ahead and sue me. I would be happy to see this all aired in court. But, I would be even happier to see you investigate this situation and act to help bring these human rights abuses to an end.

Sincerely,

Marty Rathbun

For whom does Bert Fields work?

LAW OFFICES OF

Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP

August 26, 2009

Marty Rathbun

Dear Marty:

I am out of the country on a family vacation, but I did want to respond to your letter.

As I think you know, I represent Tom Cruise, not David Miscavige or the Church of Scientology. My letter to you was soley to protect Tom’s rights, not to deal with whatever issues you may have with Mr. Miscavige or the Church.

So far as Tom is concerned, I will repeat what I said before. It is neither appropriate nor lawful for you to refer to yourself online, in the media or elsewhere as Tom’s auditor. I would like to avoid taking action over this, so please stop.

I am not going to respond to your accusations about David Miscavige. Personally, I have never seen him even hint of the behavior you attribute to him. Our conversations have always been civil and respectful. He does appear to be a strong champion of the Church and its values. But that is not only his job, it is his life.

I know from what Mike Rinder has said that Mr. Miscavige, in effect, saved the Church when he cleaned house in the 80′s.

In any event, whatever your issues may be, I hope you can solve them.

Sincerely,

Bertram Fields

NUDGE

email sent to Bert Fields by Marty Rathbun August 17, 2009:

Bert,

Having not heard a word in reply to my letter of August 12 (sent by email to you Aug 12) in response to your letter of August 7 (sent by email to me on Aug 10) I am left to wonder whether you acted upon my suggestion on how to handle my letter – and its referenced webpage links – vis a vis your client. Should I not hear anything from you by noon Tuesday August 18, I will proceed under the assumption you and your client ignored my suggestion and are instead working on a coordinated defense of Miscavige’s conduct.

Marty

Top Gun and Hired Gun put on notice

Bertram Fields
Greenberg, Glusker, et al.
1900 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA

August 12, 2009

re: Your letter of August 7 received August 10 via email

Dear Bert,

It is great to hear from you. I appreciate the civil tone of your letter as well as its appeal to reason.

Because I also appreciate the fact that you have championed fundamental human rights for many, I believe there is information you need to know concerning ongoing abuses that you are unwittingly supporting. Please take the time to consider the information I am providing in response to your expressed concerns. You may find that information raises more serious and far-reaching concerns to your client and you than those you have outlined.

I will quote the entirety of your letter in sections by topic so that I clearly and thoroughly respond to each of the concerns you have expressed.

“Apparently, you have repeatedly announced to the public that you were Tom’s ‘auditor’ at the Church of Scientology, and you have used that announcement, including Tom’s name, on your website to promote your business or profession.”

Unfortunately, you apparently have been misinformed about my public utterances as well as my web blog reference. Nowhere have I used my past relationship with Tom for purposes of promoting either a business or profession. I do not run any business. I have never used Tom’s name in a promotional context. I am a person who helps many people who have been abused by David Miscavige.

That includes someone you know personally, Mike Rinder, whom I witnessed Miscavige savagely beat on at least a dozen occasions. Bert, I am not talking about an isolated incident. I am referring to more than a dozen incidents wherein David Miscavige performed aggravated assault on the same person you and your lovely wife dined with at the Celebrity Center. Three witnesses to this type of activity on Miscavige’s part corroborated me a series of articles published in the St. Petersburg Times 21-23 June. You can view that multi-media presentation at the following link:

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/

Since that initial series another eleven eye witnesses to Miscavige’s human rights violations have stepped forward and gone on record. Their accounts can be seen at the following link:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/article1023717.ece

Each public utterance I have made concerning Tom has been made in his defense. I witnessed Tom’s career and public image plummet following Miscavige orchestrating the firing of Pat Kingsley and replacing her with Tom’s Scientologist sister so that Miscavige could manipulate Tom’s public discourse and censor Tom’s exposure to information concerning Miscavige’s human rights abuses. I have defended Tom – while keeping his confessions sacrosanct – by emphatically emphasizing that Tom’s questionable public behavior in 2004 and 2005 was simply a reflection of Miscavige’s influence; and that prior to Miscavige imposing himself into every aspect of Tom’s life he was a caring, loving family man, dedicated to worthy social causes, and was the nicest person anyone would ever want to meet.

“This is not only a serious invasion of Tom’s privacy and a violation of the priest-penitent relationship, it is the unauthorized use of Tom’s name to promote a business or professional venture, which is a clear violation of Tom’s common law and statutory rights.”

I have not and would never disclose any confidences of Tom’s nor anyone else’s whom I have counseled. If Tom has concerns about that type of activity he should be very concerned about the activities of Miscavige. He has shown he is willing to do precisely what you have mistakenly accused me of doing. Miscavige and his Church sycophants have been roundly criticized for the wholesale public disclosure of coerced confessions in response to the whistleblowing actions of myself, Mike, Tom Devocht and Amy Scobee (reference the St Pete Times Truth Rundown Series).

For more on Miscavige’s proclivity for using confessions for purposes of blackmail, coercion and control please see my video taped interview segment at:

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/rathbun.shtml

If Tom is worried about me mentioning his name and the fact of my having audited him, again his concern should more properly be directed at Miscavige. Not only did Miscavige direct the public release of confessions, he suborned the perjury of a number of his underlings, and specifically had them state under oath that I never had a position of authority within the Religious Technology Center and had no training as an auditor. The best evidence of that perjury is that in 2001 through 2003 Miscavige personally assigned me as Inspector General RTC – the second highest ecclessiastical position in the religion – to coordinate Tom’s divorce from Nicole and to serve as his auditor.

Notwithstanding the fact Miscavige has directed his people to publicly call me a “fucking lunatic”, “psychotic”, “thug with an emeter”, “apostate”, “deprogrammer”, and “hit man” you and Tom have enough experience with me to know I can maintain my composure under pressure. I have done just that to protect Tom at every turn.

Dozens of former Church members have turned to me livid about Tom’s continuing public support for Miscavige. I have dissuaded each and every one of them from attacking Tom publicly. I have also counseled people who were abused by Tom personally – in matters that eerily resemble the behavior of Miscavige – to give Tom the time to get educated and do the right thing which I have convinced them he ultimately will do.

“Just imagine a Catholic Priest leaving the Church and then trying to drum up business as a lay-therapist by advertisting that he had been Frank Sinatra’s confessor. Most people would consider that disgusting and reprehensible. Yet, what you are doing is exactly the same”

Bert, I believe your analogy is inapt. Please imagine for a moment that a Catholic Cardinal witnessed the Pope engaging in and condoning on an institutional level the molestation of altar boys. Imagine the Pope blatantly used his relationship with Frank Sinatra to project to Catholics and the general public an image quite contrary and more upstanding and holy than could be expected to engage in the unlawful and reprehensible activity he was in fact engaged in. Imagine the Pope, when confronted with the truth, publicly published the confessions of the whistleblowing Cardinal, claimed he was never a Cardinal to begin with – not even a Priest – and was therefore never in a position to witness what he in fact did witness. And imagine the Pope continued to tout Frank Sinatra’s support of him and while hiding behind that endorsement carried on authorizing the abuse of children across the world.

Put yourself into the shoes of the Cardinal. Would you consider it an unethical decision for that Cardinal to ask publicly, “if I was never a Cardinal, and I was never a priest, how is it that the Pope invested so much trust in me that he personally assigned me to counsel Frank Sinatra”? And would you criticize that Cardinal if he went out of his way to defend Sinatra’s character and sought to distinguish it from the corrupt, pedophile Pope?

Now, to make my analogy even more accurate, assume the Cardinal is approached by former members of the Vatican and Sinatra’s inner circles seeking solace and guidance in dealing with their own experiences at the hands of the Pope and Sinatra. Assume also that they witnessed the Pope continuing to commit the cruelest abuses in the name of Sinatra.

I do not believe it would be your contention that the Cardinal should remain silent while knowing that the corrupt Pope and Sinatra are engaged in violations of civil and human rights on an ongoing basis.

If you believe I am weaving an unreal analogy, you might want to touch base with someone you know better than me — Mike Rinder (******@*****.net). He can tell you that my analogy is both accurate and appropriate. He can also tell you how far beyond the call of duty I have gone to protect Tom in all this.

To better understand my motivations and actions I invite you and your client to study my web blog – and its links – at:

https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/

Finally, I believe that as one of America’s most respected attorneys and human rights advocates you would be remiss if you did not directly hand this letter to your client. That means personally hand it to Tom: not Tommy Davis, Lee Anne nor anybody other than your client. I believe Tom will be doing himself a terrible disservice if he does not carefully read and view the entirety of each link I have provided herein.

Rest assured, I have Tom’s best interests at heart.

Sincerely,
Marty Rathbun