From: CL <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: CL meets Stacy--Part 2 of 5
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
Date: 18 Jan 2003 01:55:23 +0100
Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Here is number 2 of 5 in this series, being Stacy Brooks Young's
unsolicited reply to the questions I had posed to Gerry "Grand Theft"
Her line-length was considerably
longer than mine, so I've reformatted
this now to a shorter line length, but otherwise it's exactly the same
as she sent it on 24 July 1999--with all her elaborate arabesques and
pirhouettes around the questions (without ever answering even one of
them), and ALL her oily attempts to find out who I am:
Subject: Re: ATTN: GERRY ARMSTRONG--Some Questions REPOST
On 23 Jul 1999 20:33:29 -0000, Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header
>I posted this ten days
ago, and still have gotten no answer,
>so I am reposting it:
I'll answer you, Anonymous
CL. 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.
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. For that matter, I don't even know if you have ever been in
Scientology. Because of this, I don't know if you are asserting all of
this out of ignorance or out of actual firsthand information. 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.
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.
Veritas has made it clear
that they think I am 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. 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.
Consider the possibility
that I am telling you the truth and listen to
what I have to say to you. At least consider adding this information to
your data and revising your eval.
>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. Unfortunately
you will have to be willing to trust Gerry's information and mine,
because we have no documents that can substantiate what we say. 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.
Hear this, Veritas: 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.
>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
there. The entire legal structure is a smokescreen created to obfuscate
the actual power structure. The legal structure is there to serve as a
last resort if necessary, as it was used to silence Broeker. If you were
a high-level staff member and have experience that I don't have, 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. I don't ask that you
do so on a.r.s., but at least tell me privately so that I know if you
have any experience to back up what you are saying. Until then, I have
to dismiss your entire body of data as missing the forest for the 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. 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. None of the corporate
structure has any validity whatsoever within the Looking Glass of the
Scientology world. This is my experience. 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.
>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.
>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. 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.
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. 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. 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"? Does personal testimony
count? So far, you don't seem to think 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.
>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. 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. Scientology needs to know 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 say. That is why I want to know who you are before I
can know if your information has any value at all.
Furthermore, I disagree
that you are "merely discussing actual
evidence." You are voicing very strong opinions and hurling fairly
outrageous insults at Gerry, who has proven his courage and willingness
to stand up to these facsist thugs. IMHO, your insistence on hiding
behind anonymity harms your credibility.
Although still married
to Robert Vaughn Young at the time (as far as I
know--if she ever actually was), Stacy had dropped "Young" from her
For my response, see "CL
meets Stacy--Part 3 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
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
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read
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."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----