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




Message-ID: <QEDMPO6S37660.1536226852@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
From: CL <cl@canyonlycanthrope.moon>
Subject: Re: Attn Ralph Hilton
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
References: <4cafc734030e6ac60db7b69f95ab6058@dizum.com>, <RS1Y4RNJ37658.023125@anonymous.poster>, <CTYZYHKJ37659.0540046296@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, <3E431FC6.B37CA8B7@aol.com>
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: 8 Feb 2003 03:42:25 +0100
Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News
Lines: 244
X-Mail2News-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/

Hash: SHA1

Ed <metasyn@aol.com>wrote:

>CL wrote:
[snip all except this part:]
>>Armstrong took HOW many "LRH Archive" documents from the Lenskes?
>> Box Score says: Approximately 30,000.
>>Right. And Armstrong has claimed that he took "photocopies." Hmmm.
>>Gee. Just like the GO. Okay. So, with the figures that "The
>>Coalition" provided in the estimates of the alleged thefts in the
>>"Snow White" mess, that means that Armstrong would have spent about
>>100 HOURS of photocopying, and had to transport a mass about the
>>size of what fits on a wooden cargo pallet and requires a fucking
>>FORK LIFT to move, and Armstrong had to transport ~that~ ACROSS
>>STATE LINES to Clearwater to deliver it to Michael Flynn around 9
>>May 1982:
> MATH ERROR -- like in the other post about the number of stolen
>document pages in the Stipulation. In that post the volume of 34,000
>pages was miscalculated as about 130 cubic feet when the correct math
>gets you about 12 cubic feet, or a cube about 2.3 feet per side. Here
>the volume of 30,000 document pages would presumably be a tad

Yeah, you're right. I just took their volume calculation result without
side-checking it. (Looks like they might have used square foot instead
of cubic foot in doing their cubic inches -> cubic foot calcs.)

I'm involved in my own complete re-research and re-evaluation of the
whole "Armstrong Documents" question, anyway, and will factor your
error-catching in. Thanks.

Meanwhile, I've also gone back through some research data myself trying
to sort out this question of DOCUMENTS vs. DOCUMENT PAGES that The
Coalition raised regarding "Snow White" and the subsequent FBI raids,
and that I don't think they adequately addressed. Frankly, DOCUMENS vs.
DOCUMENT PAGES is apples and oranges. Or, it's film cannisters vs. film
frames. Or a better analogy I guess would be the number of books on a
shelf vs. the number of pages in all of those books. It's an enormously
different set of data, and the number of pages from one book to the next
would vary greatly.

I can see the problem The Coalition had because the sources for the
accounts of all of these various shenanigans seemed to like to provide
little or no distinction--either blithely or conveniently--but
ESPECIALLY the "Stipulation." That's where the distinction between
DOCUMENTS and DOCUMENT PAGES gets ~very~ cloudy.

As with The Coalition's efforts--which I find heroic and VERY useful
despite the VOLUME error on the 30,000 DOCUMENT PAGES problem--I'm
finding that trying to pull apart what's a DOCUMENT vs. what's DOCUMENT
PAGES has been rendered ~difficult~ in the available accounts and
records--either blithely or conveniently--but I ~think~ that it CAN be
done where it actually matters, at least enough to narrow some things
down further.

So far I've decided the following about the various counts:


I've decided I can't learn any ACCURATE number of either DOCUMENTS or
DOCUMENT PAGES allegedly photocopied in the "Snow White" matter--since
the DoJ saw fit to omit that data--but I feel that the estimates made by
The Coalition for NUMBER (not volume) OF DOCUMENT PAGES are at least
reasonable, even if within +/- 5,000. What I STRONGLY disagreed with
about their assessment was their stipulating to the feds' inflated
"15,000" figure when there was only "documented" allegations of about
3,000 DOCUMENT PAGES having been taken to that point, and even that many
requiring a concession of a pretty ridiculous number for the very first
"run" with Meisner and Hermann, and possibly Gerald Wolfe. So that
"15,000" was at least a 12,000-page "gimme" to the DoJ right there.

But even with all that, The Coalition at least provided some very
thoroughly researched estimate that brought the government's entire
one-sided bloviated horror story into some kind of practical real-world
perspective. So whether the number of DOCUMENT PAGES was equivalent to a
cube 5.5' per side, or 2.3' per side, I can still look in a corner of
the room and visualize it, and understand how it does approximate to
what the named personnel in the described circumstances MIGHT
conceivably have managed, and also know that it doesn't require a semi
tractor-trailor and 150+ FBI agents working a solid 1.5 man-years AT ONE
LOCATION in a single day to "recover."

That is NO concession or stipulation to the "Stipulation" <SPIT!>
itself, because it obviously has more holes than NOW. (I originally said
"fucking holes," but then considered that was indelicate.)


I've decided I can't learn any ACCURATE number of either DOCUMENTS or
DOCUMENT PAGES carried away by the FBI from the Cedars-Sinai
Complex--but I'll come back to that raid last.

As for the Fifield Manor raid, I feel like it's at least fairly safe to
rely on the approximate 430 DOCUMENTS (~not~ DOCUMENT PAGES) reported by
the appeals court as having been taken from Fifield--since that
referenced an INDEX that was an exhibit in the case. I don't even think
the number of DOCUMENT PAGES is all that important to compute at the
moment for that raid.

As for the D.C. raid, I'm also fine about relying on the "several
hundred" DOCUMENTS (~not~ DOCUMENT PAGES) referred to by Judge Bryant in
his ruling on that, because at the very least it puts it in some kind of
ballpar, and am fine about the "several hundred" being estimated at 400.

But that still leaves the VERY big eighteen-wheel problem of the
Cedars-Sinai raid. What those 150+ FBI agents were hauling away from
THERE, and ~why~ the FBI had more agents there, and had them there for
longer, than at either of the other two locations--ESPECIALLY when there
were NO USGO OFFICES at the Cedars-Sinai Complex--is a ~very~ pregnant
question that nobody seems to have wanted even asked, much less
answered. So the one thing about ~that~ FBI raid that ~really~ has my
attention right now is what the appeals court said, their EXACT
language, about what was taken by the FBI from the Cedars-Sinai Complex,
and that is: "...in all, between 23,000 and 47,000 SEPARATE DOCUMENTS."
(My emphasis.) That is NOT DOCUMENT PAGES: that's "SEPARATE DOCUMENTS."

Heh. Well, let me point out something that is not generally known or
used in daily water-cooler conversation, but it's something I know
GODDAMNED WELL that those appelate judges sitting in their stinky black
polyester robes knew, and that is that a DOCUMENT in law, and "within
meaning of the best evidence rule," is defined as:

"ANY physical embodiment of information or ideas."

"ANY writing, recording, computer tape, blueprint,
x-ray, photograph, or other physical object upon
which information is set forth..."

So those DOCUMENTS weren't limited to being made up only of PAGES, per
se. The DOCUMENTS also could have included audio tapes, films, you name
it, and the FBI agents were carrying these "documents" out to the semi
in closed boxes. And they filled this truck "almost to capacity." WTF
would they have been carrying away from this location by the box-load,
when there were NO USGO OFFICES there at all? Beans-and-rice recipes?
Personality tests? Girls' phone numbers?

And was it 23,000 DOCUMENTS? Or was it 47,000 DOCUMENTS? That is just
one of the weirdest things in all of this. That fucking SPREAD. Why did
EVERYBODY want to leave the haul from the Complex so ~fucking~ vague?

The only thing that I can do with it is what I did in my earlier post,
and settle on the MEAN between the two figures the court gave.

So my appoximation of the "FBI RAIDS" count differs from The Coalition's
count this way, so only DOCUMENTS are being compared:


These are ALL figures provided by United States courts.

Well, CHRIST, the number of DOCUMENTS taken from the Cedars-Sinai
Complex, even then, is roughly 84 ~TIMES~ the average number of
DOCUMENTS taken from the other two locations, and the OTHER two
locations is where the GUARDIAN OFFICE offices were located!

And all I'll note here for the time being is that the average of the
estimated number of DOCUMENTS taken from each US GUARDIAN OFFICE
location is approximately the same, but they are FAR different from what
was taken from the NON-US GUARDIAN OFFICE location that was ALSO raided.

Now as for...


I've decided I can't learn any ACCURATE number of either DOCUMENTS or
DOCUMENT PAGES concerning what Armstrong took from the ALLEGED "LRH
Archives" on or by (the accounts conflict) 12 December 1981.

And I now am using the term ALLEGED "LRH Archives" in relation to what
the Lenskes and Armstrong--and, later, Robert Vaughn Young--were
roosting on in secret locations, which apparently, from all I can find
so far, nobody else except Norman F. Starkey and perhaps Norton S. Karno
had access to.

The "Stipulation" <SPIT!> is bad enough about muddying up what was
allegedly taken, and when, and by whom, but the Armstrong stories make
the "Stipulation" look like precision micrometer math.

So at the moment I'm now embarked on exhaustive re-research into ALL of
the various accounts, newspaper stories, and court records I can put my
hands on in re: the "Armstrong documents," and will make that the
subject of a separate post.

So thanks for the heads-up on the math mistake, Ed; I hadn't caught it
when I read their post and so just ran with it. It's good to have
eagle-eye sharp guys like you to fall back on.

Of course, the next time you attempt to link me--and, far more
importantly, the documented data I provide--with the nut-rants of
Virginia and Mike McLaughry will be the precise moment at which you
join the McLaughrys and Michael Reuss in the special high-security Life
Without Parole Psycho Ward section of my handy newsreader killfile.

Then who's gonna' catch me when I stumble, Ed?


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  §