Tag Archives: Monique Rathbun

Bunkeroos vs. Scientologists

The cult of Tony Ortega has recently surpassed the church of Scientology in dysfunctionally partisan behavior.  I have obtained documentary evidence that Bunkeroos (slavish believers and followers of the word of The Underground Bunker) have been soliciting donations to hire private investigators.  The Bunkeroos are promoting the fulfillment of Tony Ortega’s published suggestions on behalf of Ray Jeffrey that the home of Monique Rathbun and her two-year-old child be put under surveillance.

What is so surreal about this situation is that had Monique Rathbun not selflessly endured similar treatment in the past, Tony Ortega and Ray Jeffrey would have long ago become Scientology road kill.  The same is true for the cluster of vermin who have partnered in the Ortega/Jeffrey campaign against Monique Rathbun.

 

Censorship and Hypocrisy

Tony Ortega’s blogging campaign against my wife Monique and me over the past three months has resulted in the largest wave of hate we have experienced in several years. We even saw that an erstwhile friend published an unsolicited psychiatric evaluation (including still more falsehoods) to explain our behavior as characterized by Ortega. The following descriptions of Monique (some referred to both her and me) written by Bunker regulars and published by Ortega pretty much sum up the sentiments Ortega has fueled:

  • “Sympathy? I has none.
  • Monique, no respect.  NONE. Sympathy? Nope. I never want to hear from these losers again
  • subservience , irrationality, and paranoia
  • Marty and Miscavige are cut from the same cloth. And Monique? Well, she did marry the guy.
  • I wouldn’t be surprised if the Rathbuns name would surface somewhere in the future when some stuff like the “Panama-papers” are leaked again.
  • classless and nasty (both)
  • Mosey has fallen under thrall of whatever fixed delusion he is living under.
  • Somehow they were turned, Whether from threats or payoffs or some combination of the two.
  • I hope like hell the next Rathbun post will be how Mosey blew the ranch and escaped from Marty.
  • Either Monique is drinking Marty’s kool aid or I think the next thing we will hear about is a divorce.
  • The Rathbuns are as mentally ill as Scientology.
  • I’m very much afraid that the one who is going to end up rueing the day is Monique.
  • Well, she does heve to wake up next to Mr Scilon Warrior every day… I don’t envy her that..
  • I find it hard to maintain any respect or trust for them at this point.”

For those Bunkeroos already sold on Tony’s sexist pitch that Monique is incapable of making decisions of her own, the comments describing me included: “a burning train wreck, a fictional Nazi, a hanging judge, a mini-Hubbard, callous and unrepentant, boy, He’s nuts!, an asshole, FUCKIN DELUSIONAL, Marty doesn’t seem stable, an old alter ego who now embraces Hubbard’s paranoia even worse than before, He may or may not be a sociopath…He is certainly narcissistic and has other qualities that are borderline at the very least, I really think Marty has gone off the deep end too, a little mental illness, he is still “living in his head,”MR loves MR alright – but both stand for Mark Rathbun…He has never stopped playing footsie with his ex-boyfriend, He’s a sack of shit, an asshat selfish prick, some serious fuckery, Marty went nuts, My opinion is that Marty has gone over the edge and is behaving very self-destructively (unfortunately now with people to drag down with him), This appears to be a battle of two narcissists, I believe his hands got very dirty.”  And finally, “I don’t think Marty is stable and that is not an environment to raise a child in.”

In this whirlwind of hysteria that became the Bunker comments section a few days ago, a singularly dissident voice interrupted, briefly.  It was not rude. It was not assertive.  It merely posed a question.  The comment was not made by a friend or ally of ours. It was made by Alanzo, a long-time scientology critic who has unloaded quite a bit of criticism on me over the years.  I thought it was interesting how quickly Bunkeroos sought to label him a troll and dismiss his apparently dangerous, if simple, thought. I re-publish it below for two reasons. I believe that standing alone it serves as a textbook study in phenomena we have explored in-depth on this blog (see e.g., Culture of Complaint, Good vs. Evil, Vortex of Hate, etc).  The second reason for re-publishing, which serves to reinforce the first reason, is that Tony Ortega took it upon himself to censor this thread. He left in the plethora of ill-mannered demands for Monique’s and my necks.  But, he deleted and censored Alanzo.

The deleted/censored thread:

Alanzo

Tony wrote: “In a bizarre document, Monique makes accusations that her former attorneys — Ray Jeffrey, Marc Wiegand, Elliott Cappuccio, and Leslie Hyman — had made it “abundantly clear” that the lawsuit was “not worth it financially,” and that the attorneys had filed defective paperwork that allowed Scientology’s attorneys to file appeals that caused delay.

Note Tony’s word “bizarre” used above to describe the document.

Is this Tony’s bias, or is he just reporting the facts?

Alanzo

chukicita  Alanzo • 29 minutes ago

Perhaps it’s a bit of both. Certainly it’s not a typical document, and the accusations are unexpected and unusual. What word would you have used to describe it?

This is a blog, not a newspaper, and I think Tony does an excellent job of bringing the facts to light and keeping his opinions in check at times, even though he doesn’t have to.

Alanzo  chukicita • 4 minutes ago

I think that the document has to perform an abrupt change in a course of action, and that it should be allowed to speak for itself.

Because this is a blog, and not a newspaper which is supposed to be more objective, I think it is even more important to question Tony’s opinions and to be on the look out for his bias on things and to remember that he has no corner on the truth. Other viewpoints and other opinions exist besides Tony Ortega’s, and sometimes those differing opinions shed more light on the truth, and on Scientology, than Tony Ortega could ever muster.

Everyone is biased in favor of Ray Jeffrey here, and his team of lawyers. And we even have another lawyer as an “expert” giving his opinion about the criticisms of Ray Jeffrey, which, unsurprisingly, are very “pro-lawyer”.

Maybe Monique presented a document to the court which was true, and the criticisms of her former attorneys were justified. Why else would such abrupt action need to be taken? Perhaps we should ask Mr Occam, too?

Do clients normally never disagree with the course of actions taken by their attorneys unless they are insane as Tony and Texas Lawyer have both intimated? Do Tony, or even Texas Lawyer, know the particular situation with her lawyers better than Monique?

No.

So I think this is exactly where Tony, and Texas Lawyer, should keep their biases to themselves. And if they are unable to do that, those biases should be highlighted, and questioned by the “commenting community” here.

That is, if the commenting community here cares about the truth.

Alanzo

L Wrong Hubturd Alanzo • 14 minutes ago

5 comments, 6 votes. I do not think you are the real “Alanzo”

Alanzo  L. Wrong Hubturd • 5 minutes ago

Yes. I am the Real Alanzo. I went into retirement last year when I got news that my best friend had cancer, and I could not imagine wasting my time on anything related to Scientology ever again. So I whacked all my accounts.

But my friend has gotten radiation and chemotherapy and it has lengthened the amount of life he has left to live, and so I felt I could afford a little more Scientology in my life.

chukicita  • 15 minutes ago

Additionally, I think the knee-jerk reaction that somehow Monique was being called insane was not useful at all.

The *behavior* of firing successful lawyers was, in the absence of other information, being called out as inconsistent with the original goals of the lawsuit. Reading over the original blog post, no one called *Monique* insane.

chukicita  • 19 minutes ago

I think it’s important to look at the pattern of behavior that at least on the surface seems to be a thread of cohesion in some litigation that involves Scientology. Perhaps Dr. Occam could call up Bob Minton and Ken Dandar.

If you have facts that contradict, why not offer them up?

L Wrong Hubturd chukicita • 12 minutes ago

I do not think think this is the Alonzo you think it is. I think we have an impostor, here to stir the pot.

Alanzo  L. Wrong Hubturd • 3 minutes ago

Oh, make no mistake: I am here to stir the pot.

Obviously you don’t know the Real Alanzo.

Alanzo

ze moo  • 29 minutes ago

No the word bizarre does fit the situation. This filing shows some no longer pent up anger and distrust of the lawyers involved. The client is not always right, but they do have approve what their lawyers do. It seems that a simmering disagreement has boiled over and this is the result.

It is bizarre to fire your lawyers when they are on a roll. All of the delays and appeals were foreseeable and should have been planed on.

While the legal work is over in this case, the story is not over yet.

Alanzo  ze moo • 15 minutes ago

The pay out of this suit was never going to be unlimited. If you look at Monique’s document as a statement of non-viability of the economics of the lawsuit, I do not think it is bizarre at all.

And I think your description of a “simmering disagreement has boiled over and this is the result.” is pretty accurate. I think Marty has pretty good experience with how Church lawyers operate, and Marty and Monique might not have been listened to as closely as they should have been.

And since Monique stated that they were able to achieve outside of the court what the lawsuit sought to achieve in the court, she dropped the suit.

Sorry. This, if true, is not bizarre.

That is only Tony’s bias showing.

Alanzo

Tony Ortega – The Underground Bunker

Mark my words.  Tony Ortega and his unnamed sources will rue this day when they declared Monique Rathbun as fair game and subjected her to intentional libel.

 

Australia’s 60 Minutes

Welcome to all the folks from Australia who have apparently been visiting this blog (visit counter just went off the charts) in the minutes since the 60 Minutes piece ran there.  If you are interested in learning more about Scientology you may want to visit the right hand column of the home page of this blog.  There are links to a number of books, sites, and other informative media pieces that have run in the past couple years.  There is also a search feature where you can explore the more than 1,100 articles published on this site.  For those not in Australia, I am informed that the show will appear at this link momentarily, 60 Minutes Australia.  Contrary to scientology’s published response to this show, like virtually all other media that have interviewed us Sixty Minutes approached us to ask for the interviews.

Scientology Preview – 60 Minutes Australia

Will be available to international viewers shortly after airing at 60 Minutes Australia.

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

Miscavige’s Obsession with the Rathbuns

Many have speculated why the Miscavige obsession with our family is so intense and seemingly inexorable.  Miscavige has spent millions in a variety of forums attempting to explain or justify it.  The writings on that score in his publications, legal threats to media, and legal pleadings and utterances from his PR hacks and agents – including the deep ranks of expensive attorneys – are so far-ranging, self-contradictory and red herring in nature, that they are unhelpful in discerning the answer to the question: why such an obsession?  Yet, the answer is apparent, by the repeated expression of our objectives right here on this blog as well as in  a number of media interviews. Below are several excerpts and links to support the ideat that the motivation for Miscavige’s mania lies in his need to resurrect the effectiveness of Scientology’s domestic terror apparatus.

The record:

September 25 2009, Winds of Change:

To stand and communicate one’s convictions and defend the rights of other friends to do the same is the remedy for Miscavige’s brand of terrorism.  It can make one feel healthier and more whole. If enough people follow your lead, it will lead to the end of the Scientology reign of terror.

September 26 2009, Independent Scientologists Community:

People who have simply exercised their abilities to be there and comfortably confront when faced with Church intimidation tactics – and not allowed themselves to be drawn into flash fights and the resultant creation of ridges – have as-is’d the invaders. That has happened most frequently when the person being targeted by the Church has the comfort of knowing he has people who are behind him or her with unconditional love. It is quite remarkable.

I am fairly certain that if a decent percentage of independent Scientologists stand up, identify themselves, and freely associate with like-minded friends in the light of day at least three things will happen:

a. Many individual lives will regain meaning. Many more lives still will reap the gains from each of us who independently and freely use Scientology with no other motivation than to help others reach higher states of beingness.

b. Scientology (the subject and community) will experience a renaissance within society at large.

c. Miscavige’s church will be forced to either radically reform by reversing its suppressive operating basis or face its inevitable demise (note the intransitive is used; it is not because of anything that you or I will do to it that will cause it other than being their comfortably – it will be a self-inflicted fate).

February 1 2010, The Underground Railroad Goes Overland:

One primary purpose behind encouraging people to overtly declare their independence was to break the back of the mafia-like protection racket run by the C of M. That is, to help people get out from under the black cloud of intimidation and threatened execution of forced disconnection for purposes of breaking Scientologists’ wills and independent thought processes.  The idea has proven workable. Each person who overtly straightens his back demonstrates to many more how incapable the  C of M is to ride straight backs. For each who does so overtly, dozens more begin to straighten their own by witnessing it can be done without serious repercussion and seeing tall walking people blossoming.

January 21 2011, Confront of Evil:

The pathetic and empty nature of their threats serves as confirmation of my oft-repeated analysis: AS INDEPENDENTS BECOME MORE NUMEROUS AND COURAGEOUS, RADICAL SCIENTOLOGY’S RESOURCES TO HARASS WILL BECOME MORE DISSIPATED AND THEIR “ATTACKS” WILL BECOME LESS AND LESS EFFECTIVE. And so it has played itself out in that fashion.

August 18 2011, Why The Obsession?:

People who have been following this blog for some time understand that this is a message I have often repeated: when enough real Scientologists stand up and be heard as Independents, Miscavige’s resources will be spread so thin trying to intimidate them that his actions will be so ineffectual that the world will see there is nothing to fear from Radical Corporate Scientology. 

It apparently has come to pass that from Miscavige’s perspective too many people have stood up and been counted so that Scientology has lost its terror-control factor.  There are not enough resources to re-corral or make examples of all those who have stood and are continuing to do so, nor even a significant portion of them.  Apparently, in the mind of Miscavige the only way to discredit the notion that Scientology can no longer hunt you to the grave if you dissent is to very visibly and thoroughly destroy the guy who widely and repeatedly asserted that there was nothing to fear – and the current state of affairs to gain – by standing up.