§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §




Message-ID: <CGUFGJH337639.1475347222@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
From: CL <cl@canyonlycanthrope.moon>
Subject: CL meets Stacy--Part 4 of 5
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
X-Remailer-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/
Date: 18 Jan 2003 03:34:38 +0100
Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News
Lines: 778
X-Mail2News-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/

Hash: SHA1

This is number 4 of 5 in this series, Stacy Brooks Young's last
communication to me.

If you have already read number 3 in this series (my response to her),
you needn't read through all of this; just scroll to the bottom, because
all she did here is quote my response in its entirety and add a single
imperious and evasive line at the end as she tucked tail and ran.


From: stacyb1@ix.netcom.com (Stacy Brooks)
Subject: Re: ATTN: GERRY ARMSTRONG--Some Questions REPOST
Date: 1999/07/24
Message-ID: <379ad525.2191252@news.newsguy.com>
References: <379f1916.16647876@news.newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

On 24 Jul 1999 06:39:05 -0000, Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header
(CL) wrote:

>stacyb1@ix.netcom.com (Stacy Brooks) in message
><379f1916.16647876@news.newsguy.com> wrote
>>On 23 Jul 1999 20:33:29 -0000, Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header
>>(CL) wrote:

>>>I posted this ten days ago, and still have gotten no answer,
>>>so I am reposting it:
>>I'll answer you, Anonymous CL.
>Thank you very much, Ms. Brooks. I've read a lot about you, and
>I feel honored having your personal attention. I had hoped Gerry
>would have the courage and integrity to answer for himself, but
>if that is not to be the case, I'm happy to discuss all this
>with you.
>>I've seen a number of other recent posts directed at Bob Minton which
>>voice generally the same views (although in a more impassioned way)
>>as you are voicing here, and you seem to be voicing the opinions of
>>the Veritas group.
>Well, I've seen the posts that I assume you are referring to.
>Would those be the "Hey, Minton!" series? Let me commend you on
>the seamless way you tied me to those posts, and tied those posts
>and me to Veritas. It was a nice try, and very smoothly done, but
>I am neither the author of the "Hey, Minton!" posts, nor am I
>voicing the opinions of the "Veritas group," nor any opinions but
>my own. My opinions, though, were not the subject of my post. The
>subject of my post to Gerry Armstrong is evidence. So I hope you will
>join me in staying on the subject, and that you will actually
>answer the questions, as you promise.
>>Since you insist on remaining anonymous, there is no way for me to
>>know if you have had any experience in the Sea Org, senior
>>management, or even staff.
>That is irrelevant to one's ability to look at documents and
>understand plain, black-and-white facts. I believe that based
>on your assessment of Scientology staff, I would be better able to
>do that if I weren't having to overcome the handicap of having been
>brainwashed by Scientology organizational structure dogma. So if
>you're comfortable with the assumptions that I haven't been on
>Scientology staff, why don't you go with that, and then we can
>both assess documented evidence together without the irrelevancies
>getting in the road.
>>For that matter, I don't even know if you have ever been in
>Equally irrelevant. I am talking about documented evidence.
>Documents, legally binding documents. They don't care who is
>looking at them. So let's look at them together. Whatever our
>varied backgrounds. I'm interested in your answers.
>>Because of this, I don't know if you are asserting all of this out of
>>ignorance or out of actual firsthand information.
>I don't know what "all of this" is that you falsely claim I am
>"asserting." I refer to documents. I do not to assert the documents.
>They exist. Therefore, they assert themselves. That would qualify,
>then, as actual firsthand information. There is no ignorance
>involved, unless you are ignorant of the existence of these
>documents. Then you would have to familiarize yourself with those
>documents before we could have a meaningful discussion about
>them. But I look forward to your answers about the evidence.
>>I have to assume it is the former, since it does not fit with my
>>firsthand experience, and obviously does not fit with Gerry's.
>You assume incorrectly. I am not ignorant of the documents. I
>have studied them in depth. If the documents do not fit with your
>firsthand experience, does that mean you haven't seen or read them?
>>If you are a Scientologist, you will understand what I am about to
>>say: The Veritas point of view smacks of a wrong why on an eval. Your
>>data trail is flawed, your outpoints are faulty, your why is way off,
>>and your whos are wrong.
>I don't know what the "Veritas point of view" is, and you
>merely introduce another irrelevancy into a discussion of a set
>of legal documents that demonstrate clearly that CST owns all the
>copyrights to everything related to Scientology, and that CST has
>the right, in its sole discretion, to take over the trademarks at
>anytime from RTC. This is a fact. This is incontrovertibly proven.
>Whether it "fits with your experience" or not is irrelevant.
>Whether it is the "Veritas point of view" or not is irrelevant. It
>is legally binding. It is contractual. It is not subject to your
>opinion, or Veritas's opinion, or Gerry Armstrong's opinion, or
>mine. It is ridiculous to argue against incontrovertible facts.
>>Veritas has made it clear that they think I am an agent for the IRS.
>Why don't you take this up with Veritas, not me? You can e-mail
>them from their website (I don't remember the e-mail address). I
>e-mailed them with some questions about their site, and got a very
>pleasant and informative response. Have you e-mailed them about
>what you say they think about you? I am also curious how you know
>what they think about you. I have been all over their web site
>numerous times doing research on the evidence we are discussing
>here, and I have never seen any mention of you anywhere on their
>site. Can you give me the url where they say they think you are
>an agent for the IRS?
>>It seems to me that you are basing this idea on information you must
>>have gathered in your data trail. But I am not an agent for the IRS.
>I'm afraid you are beginning to sound a bit erratic. I don't
>think you are an agent for the IRS. (But you are beginning to
>make me wonder by denying it so vehemently :-))
>>What is ironic to me is that the entire time I was in Scientology I
>>was suspected of being an agent for either the FBI, the IRS, or
>>Michael Flynn. Now I am out of Scientology and I am continuing to be
>>suspected of being an agent. I am not.
>There you go again. :-) Listen, I am very sorry for all you went
>through in Scientology. I have read a good deal about what happened
>to you, and have read all your affidavits/declarations and what
>have you. I'm sorry that people suspect you, but I am just trying
>to talk about some evidence here. Remember? The evidence that proves
>CST owns all the copyrights and has control over the trademarks.
>I asked some questions about that in my original post, and you said,
>in the beginning of your message that you would answer me.
>>Consider the possibility that I am telling you the truth
>That, of course, is my assumption, until you lie to me and it is
>proven that you have. (I ~would~ like to know where Veritas said
>you were an IRS agent. That came as quite a surprise to me,
>because I haven't heard of that before, but I'm sure you wouldn't
>have said it without being able to support it, so I'll wait till
>I hear back from you on that one.)
>>and listen to what I have to say to you. At least consider adding
>>this information to your data and revising your eval.
>I am completely willing to listen to what you have to say, and of
>course it will become part of my data. What weight it will have
>against other data remains to be seen.
>>>Gerry, I was wondering if you would help me with a couple of
>>>straightforward questions I have:
>>>1. Did you know about CST owning all the copyrights before
>>> the "Scientology Copyright Transfers" database was
>>> published in a.b.s.?
>>>2. In a recent post, you said: "$cientology, as directed by
>>> the Miscavige regime..." and that the "$cientology
>>> corporations...are all part of the single criminal
>>> enterprise under the criminal dictator Miscavige." How,
>>> exactly, does Miscavige exert dictatorial control over
>>> the people who own all the copyrights, and how can I
>>> document/verify your answer the way the Library of
>>> Congress documents prove conclusively that CST owns all
>>> the copyrights?
>>For those of us who were there for the Miscavige takeover there can
>>be no question that what Gerry says is correct information.
>I don't know what you mean by "what Gerry has to say." Gerry
>hasn't said anything yet about that part of my post, which is
>regarding the Library of Congress records showing that CST owns
>all the copyrights. He hasn't said ~anything~ at all about it.
>That's why I asked the questions. He hasn't answered them. Come
>to think of it, neither have you. You said at the very beginning
>of your post, "I'll answer you, Anonymous CL." Yet, so far,
>you haven't answered a single question that I asked Gerry.
>>Unfortunately you will
>>have to be willing to trust Gerry's information and mine,
>Well, If I could get some information from either of you that was
>actually responsive to my questions, I might. But I don't know
>without getting the information. Read the questions again, and
>answer them, as you promised at the beginning of this post. DID
>you know about CST owning all the copyrights before the Library
>of Congress databases were posted or not? That's simple: yes,
>you did, or no, you didn't. What's the answer? Please. You said
>you would answer me, but you don't. And HOW does David Miscavige
>exert dictatorial control over CST? If you have this first-hand
>experience, why not just answer the question in place of all of
>this rhetoric?
>>because we have no
>>documents that can substantiate what we say.
>That is, indeed very unfortunate.
>>All we have is our firsthand experience and what Gerry observed as an
>>Int staff member and what I observed as a GO, then ASI, then OSA
>>staff member. But this would be admissable evidence in a court of law.
>Good! So: DID you know about CST owning all the copyrights before
>the Library of Congress databases were posted or not? That's simple:
>yes, you did, or no, you didn't. What's the answer? Please. You said
>you would answer me, but you don't. And HOW does David Miscavige
>exert dictatorial control over CST?
>>Hear this, Veritas:
>Hear this, Ms. Brooks: if you want to talk to Veritas, please
>attach yourself to one of their posts, or go to their website and
>e-mail them.
>>DM appoints and busts all CST staff members. They are figureheads
>>just as the staff of RTC and CSI are figureheads. They are there only
>>as long as they do what DM tells them to.
>Well I believe this is very, very important, what you have to say.
>And I urge you to write up a firsthand, eyewitness account of
>everything you know on this subject, and rush it to the Attorney
>General and the Secretary of State of California. Because that
>means that CST is operating in violation of the non-profit
>corporate laws of the State of California, in which case they
>could be subject to severe consequences.
>You see, this is what the Bylaws of the Church of Spiritual
>Technology (CST) specifies:
>"Section 1. Purpose. The primary purpose of the Board of Trustees
>shall be to elect General Directors of the corporation. In
>furtherance of this purpose the Trustees may remove a General
>"Boards of Directors
>"Section 1. Function and Authority of the Boards.
>"a. Composition: The combined Boards of Directors ('Boards') shall
>be composed of three (3) General Directors ('Board of General
>Directors') and three (3) Special Directors ('Board of Special
>"b. Generally. The activities and affairs of the corporation, as
>distinguished from the ecclesiastical affairs of the Church, shall
>be managed and conducted, and all corporate powers shall be
>exercised, by or under the direction of a Board of General
>Directors, subject to the approval or veto of certain actions by a
>majority of the authorized Special Directors...
>"...The Special Directors shall carry out their duties by approving or
>vetoing every resolution, vote, or act of the General Directors
>which in any way directly or indirectly affects the duties of the
>Special Directors set forth above. In addition, Special Directors
>may by unanimous vote direct the General Directors to consider any
>matter which comes within the scope of their duties, as outlined
>"Section 2. Election and Tenure of General Directors.
>"a. Election. General Directors shall be elected by majority vote of
>the Trustees of the corporation. Trustees may not cumulate votes in
>electing General Directors...
>"Section 4. Appointment. Tenure, Resignation and Succession of
>Special Directors.
>"a. Initial Special Directors. The names of the persons who shall
>serve as the corporation's initial Special Directors are:
>"i. Stephen A. Lenske
>"ii. Sherman D. Lenske
>"iii. Lawrence E. Heller.
>"b. Tenure. Persons appointed as Special Directors shall Possess a
>lifetime tenure, so long as they remain in good standing with the
>State Bar Association of California...
>"...To the extent possible, vacancies shall be filled from members in
>good standing of the California State Bar Association who are then
>employed by the law firm of Lenske, Lenske, Heller & Magasin, A Law
>Corporation, or its successor ("LLH&M") and are familiar with the
>purposes of this corporation...
>"Officers of the Corporation
>"Section 1. Required Officers. Officers of the corporation, as
>distinguished from ecclesiastical posts, shall be elected by
>majority vote of the Board of General Directors, and shall include a
>President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer, each of whom shall serve at
>the pleasure of such Board...
>"Section 2. Optional Officers. The Board of General Directors may
>elect one or more Vice-Presidents, and one or more Assistant
>Secretaries and Assistant Treasurers and such other subordinate
>officers as the Board of General Directors shall from time to time
>deem appropriate...."
>Well, I could go on, but I believe by now you are beginning
>to get the idea. Did you follow all that? I know it's legalise,
>and all, but this is one of the documents I was referring to.
>You are familiar with it, aren't you?
>You see what I mean: it isn't subject to "opinion," and my
>background has nothing whatsoever to do with it saying what it
>says or not. It is a legally binding document, administrated
>under the applicable corporate laws of the State of California.
>Your opinions and mine are beside the point.
>And if you do, in fact, have firsthand, eyewitness testimony that
>you can give to the Attorney General and the Secretary of State
>of California, testifying to your assertion above that David
>Miscavige has everybody in that corporation, and in RTC and CSI,
>hired and fired at his whim, I believe you can single-handedly
>shut down CST, and all of their copyrights and trademark options
>would be taken over by the State, and you will have single-
>handedly brought an end to the scourge CST, and therefore all
>of Scientology.
>Why haven't you done this?
>I certainly would report such egregious and blatant violations
>of corporate law to the proper authorities if I had firsthand,
>eyewitness evidence.
>Of course, it is unfortunate that you can't document your claims,
>but if you have seen, firsthand, the hiring and firing of Directors
>and Officers by DM alone, and it isn't just hearsay, and it isn't
>just your conjecture, and it isn't a lie, then you have powerful,
>powerful evidence that could bring down the whole tower, and I
>am at a loss to understand why you are not sitting in the Office
>of the Attorney General right now filing charges.
>>>3. Have you seen the legal documents proving that CST can
>>> take over any and all of the registered trademarks from
>>> RTC (Miscavige) at any time, at their "sole discretion"?
>>When you say things like this it confirms for me that you were never
>Whether I was there or not has nothing whatsoever to do with
>whether or not CST can take over any and all of the registered
>trademarks from RTC at their sole discretion. It is contractual,
>it is legally binding: they can.
>So since you promised me at the beginning of your message that
>you would answer me, why do you avoid the question? Why do you
>make an irrelevant point instead of answering the question? The
>question is, "Have you seen the legal documents proving that
>CST can take over any and all of the registered trademarks from
>RTC (Miscavige) at any time?" So, HAVE you?
>>The entire legal structure is a smokescreen created to obfuscate the
>>actual power structure.
>Ms. Brooks, I appreciated your taking the time to respond to
>my message, and hoped that I was actually going to get answers
>to my questions, but you have yet to answer a single one of
>them, and you ~really~ begin to try my patience with asinine
>statements like that.
>If what you say is true, then we are not a nation of laws, but
>an anarchy. If what you say is true, the entire legal profession
>can pack up and go home. If what you say is true, then General
>Motors has no more substance than tissue paper, and can be
>blown away with a breath. If what you say is true, then the IRS
>almost ~has~ to be in league with Miscavige, and the entire IRS
>agreement is one long lie. You have read that, haven't you?
>Nobody could seriously believe what you say. It bespeaks such a
>childish view of law, it is downright silly.
>>The legal structure is there to serve as a last resort if
>>necessary, as it was used to silence Broeker.
>As you say.
>>If you were a high-level staff
>>member and have experience that I don't have,
>It would not make a particle of difference. You still haven't
>answered any of my questions, and you still cannot make the
>incontrovertible documents suddenly not be there.
>>then forgive me for being
>>presumptuous. But I am afraid that the only way to resolve that issue
>>is to let me know who you are.
>No, thank you.
>>I don't ask that you do so on a.r.s., but at least
>>tell me privately
>No, thank you.
>>so that I know if you have any experience to back up what
>>you are saying.
>What I am saying is that there is evidence, there are documents,
>and I have read them. That doesn't require any "high-level staff"
>experience. That's absurd. Have you read them? You still haven't
>answered any of my questions.
>>Until then, I have to dismiss your entire body of data as
>>missing the forest for the trees.
>Dismiss away. The documents remain. The evidence remains. Can
>you see the trees that actually exist? Or do you claim a forest
>for which no trees exist, and I am lacking because I can't see
>the forest that has no trees?
>>>4. Given that CST owns the copyrights, and has ultimate
>>> control over the trademarks, precisely what is the leverage
>>> that Miscavige has over CST that makes them dance to his
>>> dictatorship anyway?
>>Again, I don't think you would say something like this if you were
>>someone who had been a player in this game.
>Again, I have asked an answerable question, and you have
>avoided answering it. You are quite good at it. It becomes
>you. Did you learn it in Scientology?
>>CST is nothing more than part of the hall of
>>mirrors created in the early '80s to confuse the Justice Department,
>>IRS, FBI, and all other wogs.
>That is a lie. Now you have lied to me. Now I don't think I
>will be able to believe much else you say unless you back it
>up with hard evidence. CST owns all the copyrights, and has
>options over all the trademarks. That is documented. That
>is a matter of law which your opinions cannot overthrow.
>Can you see the mirrors? Show me one. Or is it a hall of
>mirrors without mirrors, like your treeless forest?
>>None of the corporate structure has any validity
>>whatsoever within the Looking Glass of the Scientology world.
>Then you live in a fairy tale.
>>This is my experience.
>Your experience regarding corporate law is painfully
>limited. It would seem that Bob would be much more
>educated in these matters. Maybe he could answer my
>>If you have experience as a former Scientologist in the SO in CMO
>>Int or wherever you were, let me know that. I would very much like to
>>know if you have firsthand experience to back up what you are saying.
>You are certainly interested in knowing who I am for some
>reason. Why is that? Why should it matter so much to you?
>If it's all just my "views," and they are all wrong, as you
>claim, what possible difference could it make to you?
>And why won't you answer my questions, as you promised?
>>>I can only assume you have some personal evidence that
>>>overthrows the tremendous body of evidence showing CST's
>>>control and power over RTC, because you go on
>>>a LOT about Miscavige. I would really be grateful if you
>>>would be willing to share your evidence here in the
>>>newsgroup, because it would go a long way toward sorting out
>>>some conflicting information.
>>What kind of evidence would you accept? DM appointed the CST staff.
>>He approved their personnel CSWs. He also busted them when they
>>didn't do what he wanted them to. Do you know the full story of the
>>Broeker bust? I think you are the one who needs to lend credence to
>>your assertions by revealing what experience leads you to say what
>>you are saying.
>See the corporate bylaws above. Where is even one piece of
>evidence to the contrary? Just one would do. Do you have
>~anything~? Anything at all besides your own antecdotal
>assertion? Did Miscavige approve the Lenskes' to be appointed
>for life? That document, with his signature, would be
>complete vindication for everything you say. Did he approve
>Meade Emory to be a Founder of CST? Prove that, and I will
>grovel in apology, and defer to everything you say. Meantime,
>your statement about CST above stands as a proven lie, and
>therefore your claims are taken with a salt mine.
>>>Frankly, though, right now the preponderance of evidence
>>>seems clearly to show that CST is the corporation that has
>>>controlling power over Scientology. And I don't mean to
>>>offend you in any way, since I don't know you, but the
>>>literature is full of different types of obsessions, and
>>>I'm wondering if you ought not consider some form of
>>>counselling regarding this Miscavige person, and the
>>>effect he seems to have had on you. You really talk about
>>>him a lot while ignoring reality regarding CST, and I believe
>>>that an inability to face reality, while fixating on one
>>>individual and granting him absolute power is a combination
>>>of traits that any therapist would tell you is not entirely
>>>healthy. Please don't take offense at that, but just really
>>>give it some careful consideration, because if there is any
>>>possibility that it is the case, the first step is accepting
>>>it and seeking help, because help is out there.e
>>Actually, I think that you, not Gerry, are the one who is obsessing
>>in spite of voluminous evidence which contradicts your conclusion.
>Post the evidence you refer to. I have posted some of the
>evidence here that I was referring to. I have no obsession
>about it. I have evidence. So far, you have personal
>anecdotal claims that you insist I believe, even though it
>is in direct contradiction to mounds of documented evidence
>that I have repeatedly referenced, some of which I have
>put in this post, and all of which is easily accesible.
>You aren't a troll, are you?
>>The way you phrase your criticism of Gerry (to wit: "I don't mean to
>>offend you in any way, since I don't know you, but the literature is
>>full of different types of obsessions, and I'm wondering if you ought
>>not consider some form of counselling regarding this Miscavige
>>person, and the effect he seems to have had on you...") serves to
>>convince me further that you are not a former staff member, since I
>>have never met anyone who came under DM's vicious control who would
>>say such a thing.
>I don't subject myself to vicious control. It seems like a
>somewhat knuckleheaded thing to do, to me.
>>In fact, this section of your message makes me wonder if you are even
>>a former Scientologist. I can't imagine a former Scientologist
>>talking this way.
>I never said I was a former Scientologist.
>>If you really have this high a level of disdain for Gerry, you must
>>be one of these a.r.s "critics" who have never been in Scientology
>>but who find it entertaining to dissect the people who have been, and
>>feel much more qualified to discuss the subject than people who were
>>actually there.
>The subject, Ms. Brooks, that I have been attempting to
>discuss, is evidence. Documented evidence. That is my
>area of interest. I expressed not disdain for Gerry
>Armstrong, but genuine concern. He seems to talk about
>virtually nothing but this Miscavige character, and I
>wanted to know if he had seen the evidence regarding
>CST, and what he knew about it. That's all. He hasn't
>answered my questions, and so far neither have you, despite
>your promise (so far, its own lie) that you would answer
>my questions.
>>In fact, this paragraph of your message tells me that you have no
>>clue what goes on inside.
>>>Anyway, if you do have evidence that shows that Miscavige
>>>is really in charge, and isn't just your own personal Moriarty,
>>>it would be very, very valuable if you would post it.
>>Again, what would you consider "evidence"?
>Asked and answered.
>>Does personal testimony count? So far, you don't seem to think so.
>Personal eyewitness testimony of actual events, with exact
>names, places, dates; those count. Claims that "So and so does
>this and that all the time, everywhere, to everybody" is what
>the precinct seargents and District Attorneys always give the
>old heave-ho to. For good reason.
>Name a Trustee, Director, Special Director, or Officer of CST
>that Miscavige personally put in place, by-passing all the
>Boards, and in specific violation of their Articles of
>Incorporation and Bylaws, with names, dates, and specifics, and
>I will get the information to the Attorney General and
>Secretary of State of California myself, since you have been
>woefully slack in not doing it. Do you have any specifics?
>Or is this just a general claim of yours that I'm supposed
>to believe because you say so?
>>Are you another one of these armchair critics who dismiss all former
>>Scientologists as kooks and think you have all the answers? You are
>>wrong, Anonymous, and you would do well to listen to those who were
>>actually there.
>I've listened, and you've lied to me. I don't know why. I
>don't know if it's out of ignorance or intentional. So any
>further correspondence from you will, I hope, include some
>specifics of what you personally witnessed, verifiable
>specifics, or documented evidence. Otherwise, you're just
>blowing Idiot Wind (apologies to Bob Dylan).
>>>Thanks in advance. I look forward to your answers.
>>>By the way: the reason I'm posting anonymously is because I
>>>don't want Scientology harrassment brought down on my family.
>>>Since I'm merely discussing actual evidence that has
>>>been posted in this newsgroup (and a.b.s.), and asking about
>>>any actual evidence you have, I don't think you would try
>>>and make this an issue, but I just wanted to let you know
>>>and get that out of the way.
>>No, Anonymous, sorry but this doesn't fly. According to your logic,
>>the people who post under their real names must enjoy having their
>>family members and friends harassed by Scientology and so post things
>>to bring this about. You are utterly wrong about that.
>I didn't say that. You did. So you are wrong about it.
>If you can derive that "logic" out of the fact that they
>choose to post with their own names, and I choose to post
>without my own name, that is your "logic," not mine. Keep it,
>please, and don't try to assign it to me. I don't care for
>it. My logic is that both they and I have a choice. They
>made theirs, I made mine. Deal with it. Or not. I didn't
>invite you to the discussion. You invited yourself.
>The difference is that you invited yourself, and then lied
>to me.
>>Seeing my family members and the family members of other people who
>>are fighting these facsist bullies is horrifying, but it is part of
>>the price we pay for standing up to them.
>Then why aren't you fighting CST, without whose copyrights and
>CST-controlled trademarks, NONE of it could be going on at
>all? Why aren't you doing that?
>>Scientology needs to know
>Scientology is a philosophy. It doesn't need to know anything.
>It can't "know" anything. It is words on paper and tape. CST
>is a powerful corporation that owns all of that paper and tape,
>and is directing what gets done with it. Wake up. Or go back
>to sleep.
>>that there are people who are not afraid of them no matter what
>>horrendous psychological terrorism they dream up. I think posting
>>anonymously is cowardly and utterly discredits anything you might
>Thank you for discrediting the Federalist Papers. I've been
>waiting centuries for somebody to do that. Who would have
>ever imagined it would be you. I feel a sense of history.
>So your opinion about my anonimity has been duly noted, and
>filed in its place of importance. <FLUSH>
>Are you about to get around to answering my questions now?
>I didn't think so.
>>That is why I want to know who
>>you are before I can know if your information has any value at all.
>I don't think that is really why you want to know who I am.
>You certainly want to know badly, don't you. Bizarre.
>Oh, well. I'll tell you who I am, as regards the evidence I
>asked you about in the questions you avoided. I am not the
>source of the evidence. The Library of Congress is. The US
>Claims Court in Washington, D.C. is. Several web pages of
>notable a.r.s. critics are sources of the evidence. The actual
>legal contracts are the source of that evidence. The Articles
>of Incorporation and the Bylaws of CST were posted in a.r.s.
>There are your sources for the evidence.
>Since all I am talking about is the evidence, the only
>thing you need to know to determine whether the information
>has any value or not is its source. So there it is. That's
>all any rational person needs to estimate the value of
>documented evidence. So I'm sure it will serve you.
>>Furthermore, I disagree that you are "merely discussing actual
>I don't recall asking for your agreement. Did I? I take
>it back.
>>You are voicing very strong opinions
>Name them or don't claim them. You lie again. It's becoming
>a habit with you, it seems.
>>and hurling fairly outrageous insults
>I expressed concern over what appears to be an obsessive
>preoccupation with David Miscavige. It still seems that way
>to me.
>>at Gerry, who has proven his courage and willingness to stand up to
>>these facsist thugs.
>But not the courage and willingness to answer these simple
>questions about documented evidence and facts? Why won't he
>>IMHO, your insistence on hiding behind anonymity harms your
>>Stacy Brooks
>Completely irrelevant. I am not presenting myself as a
>witness whose credibility needs to be tested. I am asking
>questions about evidence. The credibility of the documented
>evidence is inarguable.
>IMHO, you still haven't answered a single question I asked.
>But you said at the beginning of your message, "I'll answer you,
>Anonymous CL." So, IMHO, that makes you a liar. And yet your
>entire windy diatribe is to explain to me how and why I should
>believe everything YOU say and ignore the hard evidence. IMHO,
>you and your post occupy space that could have been a perfectly
>useful vacuum.
>I hope you'll prove me wrong by actually answering the
>questions I asked.

I'll continue our discussion once you have identified yourself.


Stacy didn't bother to sign her message. All that was left was my fond
farewell: see part 5 of this series, "CL meets Stacy--Part 5 of 5"


The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
"In Wollersheim's case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."
--Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid
"Your latest 'post' was longer than two paragraphs, so I didn't read it."
--boobootigger@webtv.net (Tigger)

Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>





§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §