Topic: Separation of Church and State
Charges against Anonymous member for anti-Scientology crimes A New Jersey man was charged today for his role in attacks on Scientology computersby Louanne Lee
(centrist libertarian)
Saturday, October 18, 2008
International news tells us today that one Anonymous member with the name Dmitriy Guzner was charged with trying to bring down the servers of the Church of Scientology back in January 2008. The US State Attorney celebrates this rare occasion - that they get one of these guys - in its own press release:
"Dmitriy Guzner, 18, of Verona, New Jersey, has agreed to plead guilty to computer hacking for his role in the distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack against the Scientology websites. A DDOS attack occurs where a large amount of malicious Internet traffic is directed at a website or a set of websites. The target websites are unable to handle the high volume of Internet traffic and therefore become unavailable to legitimate users trying to reach the sites.
According to the criminal information filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles, Guzner participated in the attack because he considered himself a member of an underground group called "Anonymous." "Anonymous" has led protests against the Church of Scientology at various locations across the country, and in January 2008 posted a video on YouTube which announced a new offensive against Scientology."
Wired Magazine additionally knows that "Dmitriy Guzner ... faces a likely sentence of 12 to 18 months in prison based on stipulations in his plea agreement, which also obliges him to pay $37,500 in restitution."
Unconfirmed but stated by The Smoking Gun is that Scientology claimed a damage of around $70,000 causes by the January 2008 DDOS attacks. Who will pay the other half?
The views expressed in this
article are those of Louanne Lee only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Louanne Lee is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
So this is the second Anonie who has been caught, and forced to take responsibility. The was Palin's email hacker. Fox News has run news on them that brought a lot of youtube reaction.
I would say this is public attention is appropriate because peaceful protest is one thing, while criminal activity is another. I would say when you knowingly consort with criminals, you putting yourself at risk.
Wow Terry, guilt by association much? One idiot screws up and does something illegal and gets busted. You know what? He gets no sympathy from me or many others. He made the decision, it is his cross to bear. Yet our protests and free speech, all within the law, will continue. One person's bad decision is not the fault of thousands of peaceful and law abiding protestors. No one is at risk of anything here other than fair game from you guys.
If a scientologist goes out and shoots his wife for money, do we blame all scientologists for it? Are all scientologists associating with criminals then? What if one commits a rape? What if scientology tries to cover that up? You know that happened. Read up on Tommy Gorman's story sometime.
It is good that Dimitry took responsability for his own acts.
Lets hope that more anonymous will start to work to create a better society instead of trying to harm those organizations who do work in that direction.
Posted By: Suppressive Person
Date: 2008-10-19 04:26:45
Hilarious to watch a little bunch of scientologists furiously fapping over their keyboards as they celebrate their PR footbullet.
Your unhinged leader Miscavige has got you so wrapped up in this "war" (like his war on the "phsychs" of which he literally requires "global obliteration") that you still can't see that it makes you look even more creepy.
You're hardly "shooting SPs[enemies] like ducks in a pond" as David Miscavige once put it. More like swatting bees with a cocktail stick.
Your cult is still a cult, you're still harming people, more of the public are wary of you thanks to the anonymous or non-anoymous and will stay well away from your orgs and front group scams such as NarCONon. Do you ever see the protests videos and reports? Do you not see the people coming up to the protesters to get a leaflet and/or to ask/tell about the cult? Do you not see how you have to struggle to get people interested in your indirect bait'n'switch con of using a so called "stress test". Nobody wants your poison, not even when its cloaked. It is so bad that you can't even keep existing long time members. Your so called OTs are leaving in droves and we see them appear on ex-scientologists message boards, disillusioned, disheatened and plain angry.
BTW there is no such thing, in the real world, as an "anti-scientology crime". We know that's hard for you to understand but then we shouldn't be surprised since the cult has repeatedly referred to itself as: "scientology is not a turn-the-other-cheek religion".
The machine continues to roll along. The preparations are continuing for the Clearwater Trials where Scientology leader David Miscaivage and all those who helped him will be tried one after another Nuremberg style. This means his body guards, his loyal officers, his mouthpieces. Anyone who created press articles meant to deceive the public. Anyone who knew about imprisonment of followers, of beatings, of forced labor and coerced abortions and kept silent. The world will breathe a collective sigh of relief when this monsterous organization has been dismantled for good. Anonymous works for that day, for our countries, for our neighbors, for our families, and for our children we struggle to make sure that organizations such as this will never prey upon another unsuspecting person ever again.
NomNom, why write nonesense like that? Why not combine it with a few phrases from popular literature, develop a plot, and publish your own book? If you're going to deal in fiction, go all the way.
Posted By: From an escapee
Date: 2008-10-19 15:37:22
I don't even know where to begin, so please, bear with me.
I was a Scientologist until very recently. It's very hard for me to type this out, and it's taken me a few weeks to decide wether or not to write you. I have no idea who you are, or what you do. I just saw the email link on your site and decided I had to write you.
I'm in my 50s. I cannot tell you where I lived or give you names, for reasons you know better than most people in Scientology do. I wanted to share my story with you, and how thankful I am. I'm going to try to speak in terms the general public can understand, based on you asking me if you could share this email.
I was a public Scientologist for over twenty years. I got into Scientology as a single mother, because members at the Org would babysit my daughter. I ended up eventually going up the Bridge until the level of OT2 before after spending alot of time, money, and more auditing sessions than I can begin to remember over the course of 15 years.
My daughter started attending courses and doing auditing as well and when she was in her later teens, Flag sent some Sea Org executives to our org and she was hooked. She signed on at the Sea Org when she was eighteen years old, in the late nineties.
I was very proud of her. My daughter was doing her part to help clear the planet and I was doing my part at the stress test tables to bring people into the Orgs and then selling them the Basics.
In 2002, I was called in to the office with the president of our Org. He sat me down and told me that my daughter was requesting to "route out" from the Sea Org and Scientology altogether and as her only close relative and one in Scientology, I was being asked to handle her to convince her to stay in.
We fought for several weeks. She had told me what was happening to her in the Sea Org and at the time I didn't believe her. She was telling us of working 18 hours a day 7 days a week, of being touched and groped by senior Sea Org officials, about not eating properly, and other horrors, very similar to what you've all read and what I've read over the last few weeks. I didn't want to believe her, and I was told that if I couldn't handle her I would be declared PTS for being connected to her. I remember calling her that night, and begged her to stop tearing our family apart, that she had to stay in, didn't she see? She was very upset, and said that was one of the reasons she had to leave, that she just believed there was something better out there, there had to be, there had to be something better than what she was in that would make her mother believe what she was being told over what she was hearing from her own daughter.
After that conversation, she blew a few days later and never finished routing out properly. She just up and left. She had called me several times to try and get me to listen to her, to hear why she had to do it and I felt like I had been betrayed. All the good Scientology had done her, had done me, had done us, why was she doing this, why was she turning her back on Hubbard and the Tech and her own mother? I was legitimately angry at her and hurt, and I couldn't realize it at the time. My heart told me something was wrong, but my head and my way of thinking told me otherwise, that I was doing the right thing.
I ended up disconnecting from my daughter around Christmas of 2002. It never did sit right with me, but I knew we were right, I knew we were clearing the planet. I wasn't PTS but I was given several auditing sessions and security checks to make sure I wasn't harboring any "crimes" against Scientology.
I continued on staff the next six years. My daughter would write me once every few months - I didn't even open the letters she sent and threw them away in the trash. It countinued this way until 2008.
Then in March, an amazing thing happened that changed my life. I was told on March 15th to not come to the Org that saturday, because there were "renovations" that were happenning to the interior or something similar. Most staff and workers got the same notice. I had left something at the Org that I needed, so I went there early in the morning.
An hour later, a group of people wearing masks, listening to music, and waving signs all approached from across the street and by our front doors, coming out of nowhere, about thirty to fifty people, I couldn't see through the windows too well. There were about a dozen staff members in the building and three in the lobby when this happened. I remember thinking it was the strangest thing I had ever seen, with all the masks. The signs said negative things about Scientology - that it was a cult, that it was a scam, and other things that would have normally made me brush it off, but the strangeness of it all kept all three of us locked on what was happening.
Immediately, one of the higher execs came from upstairs and told us we had to go to the meeting now, that we had to go upstairs to the conference room we used for auditing. It was in the middle of the building with no windows. All 12 of us went there, and there was where we stayed. Half of them didn't know what was happening outside and when we went to discuss it, the exec who rounded all of us up told us that it was a dangerous group outside and that they would try to kill us or hurt us if we went out - that they had been making death threats, had made bomb threats, had even killed - KILLED - people. We were being held inside for our own safety, and we were not to discuss what was happening outside, or to listen to anything we may have heard or seen from outside. One staffer went to call the police and called several times over the few hours that the "terrorists" were there.
They kept us in that room for six hours, only allowing short trips to the bathroom and we had to be accompanied by the two top execs who were there both to and from, taking a way through the building that made sure we wouldn't pass any windows.
They finally told us to forget about it and go home, at around six pm, and to forget what we saw as it was a group of SPs who we didn't want to talk with, didn't want to listen to.
I went home that night and I remembered a big sign I had seen with a website on it. It was [link edited for length]. I went to the site, and I panicked immediately when I saw what it was, but something just clicked on me, remembering my daughter, and I read for hours on that site and all the other ones linked through it. I read through the night, and had a large headache and didn't come in the next day because of it.
When I did get back to the Org the day after, there had been no renovations done at all. It was strange.
The exec I had mentioned earlier was an OTV. I made the first mistake I shouldn't have. I pulled him aside and asked him, since I was OTII, and had already paid for most of the preparation courses for OTIII, if the Xenu story was true, since I had seen it on so many websites. I was asked how I found out, and why I was asking, and when I said I had just looked at a few sites and was confused, I ended up getting sec-checked for three days, and was told that unless I confessed my crimes I would be kicked off the Bridge.
Over the next few months, I made the decision to leave Scientology, after doing research on it. It was a very, very hard step for me to do and it still is. I've had to move twice, change phone numbers twice, and take other steps to keep them from bothering me. I told them I wanted out completely. My friends inside were told to handle me, and I broke down and cried every night for two weeks when I realized what they were doing to me was what I had been told to do to my daughter six years ago. They disconnected from me when I told them to leave me alone and I really felt I had nobody.
I ended up looking up my daughter, who had moved in the six years. I was so scared when I picked up the phone, it took me five tries to dial the number. She picked up the phone on the third ring and said "Hello?" My voice cracked as I said her name. It was the first time we talked in six years. She just said "Mom?" in the same type of voice, and we both cried. We spoke for six hours that night.
I had missed so much of her life. Since she blew Scientology, she had moved, found a career, and was back in school. She had met a wonderful man and they had married in 2006. They had their first child around Thanksgiving last year, a beautiful daughter.
After I hung up the phone, I was so hurt and angry. I missed everything in my daughter's life because I insisted on not listening to her when she told me why she was leaving, or when she would send me letters. All her life was in those to tell me how she was, and I missed them all. I missed the letter telling me that she got accepted into school. I missed the letter about her telling me about her new job. I missed the letter that she wrote telling me about her new boyfriend and year later, her fiance. I had even thrown away my own daughters wedding invitation. I never got to see my little girl walk down the aisle, I never read or opened the letter that told me she was pregnant with her first child, or the letter that said it was a girl.
It has been a long road the last few months, but my daughter has forgiven me. I had lost twenty years of my life to Scientology, and so many meomories, and I thank god every night that I didn't lose my family too.
Scientology robbed me of all those things and I was too blind to see it, but I created a new memory that I cry everytime I remember because it was a miracle to me. Four weeks ago, I held my grandaughter for the very first time.
I'm taking it slow, one day at a time, and seeking the help I need, seeing the same doctors and specialists that helped my daughter when she left years ago.
It has taken me a long time to type this up because of the tears in my eyes, I've had to stop, it's taken me six hours to write this email.
Thank you, whoever you are. While I may never be able to stand with you, or meet you face to face, you will always have my tearful thanks for doing what you are. Get the word out to more people, and don't give up doing what you are doing, because it's working in ways nobody could have ever imagined.
Scientology's website has been disconnected from the internet for 4 days partly due to the actions of a teenager.
CoS reaction: BAWWW BAWWW TERRORIST TERRORIST! JAIL THAT KID FOR 10 YEARS, BECAUSE HE ATTACKED SCIENTOLOGY!!!
A mother has been disconnected from her daughter for 6 years mainly due to inhuman pratices of the Scientology organization.
CoS reaction: Nooo.There is no such thing as disconnection the way you characterize it. All lies! Scientology has helped me to understand my knowledge and it's building a better civilization lol
Posted By: Scientology is a hate group
Date: 2008-10-19 22:14:55
I think Lou has it all wrong. Scientology is the real hate group. Here are just a few of the hate crimes that Scientologists have committed against people exercising their right to free speech:
A denial of service attack, whether it be directed at a neo-nazi website, or a racist website, or a website promoting a money-grubbing cult, might well be a crime.
However, it is the very opposite of a crime to be actively anti-nazi, anti-racist, anti-disconnection or anti-scam.
L Ron Hubbard wishfully foresaw that, by the time people saw scientology as a law-breaking organization, scientology itself would dictate what was legal and what wasn't. (L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs")
This article wishfully and prematurely suggests the existence of "anti-scientology crime". Well, scientology has broken the law in many places and its officers have been convicted. It's already been seen as a law-breaking organization. However, scientology is not yet dictating what is legal and what is not. Don't speak too soon, Louanne. You are giving the game away.
Isn't it obvious? The man will be spending some time in jail.
Isn't it obvious? When you spend your time seeking out and attempting, by illegal means, to "right" a situation for other people, in an attempt to "save" people who actively seek out, walk through the doors of, donate money to, and study Scientology -- and then fail in their study. You have chosen a wrong target. Isn't it obvious?
If you don't, yourself, want to study Scientology, hey. Don't walk through the doors, don't pick up a book in a library, don't donate. That is up to you, just as it is up to those people you risk jail for. The fellow made some kind of plea agreement, he pled guilty. He did not act alone. When you ally yourself with criminals, odd things can happen. As they say in the military, mind your own butt, first. But you can ignore this perfectly good advise, too. That would be up to you.
Terryeo: "When you ally yourself with criminals, odd things can happen. "
Hubbard was convicted of fraud in absentia in France. He never served his 4 year sentence.
Hubbard and Kendrick Moxon were both listed as unindicted co-conspiritors in Operation Snow White, a case that saw 12 head scientologists go to federal jail. Kendrick Moxon is still Scientology's head lawyer as shown by his recent appearance in Germany as well as at pre-trial hearings for Gregg in Boston and Angry Gay Pope in LA.
Scientology in Canada is convicted of Breach of Trust as well as having to pay out the largest libel/slander settlement in Canadian history.
Scientology in Belgium and France have both been charged with fraud (although neither has gone to trial yet).
What was that you were saying about allying yourself with criminals Terryeo?
I don't think I'm allied with him. Never heard of him until this news broke. DDoS is illegal, you're right. He admitted guilt, legal system will handle it. I don't support any criminal activity, and I'm Anonymous. Weird? Not really. I can however, admit that some persons may, and have gone over the line into the realm of illegal conduct. I know Scientology has as well, court cases proving it. Can you admit Scientologists have broken the law to protect Scientology as easily as I can admit a former anon broke the law trying to shut CoS down? Doubt it.
Terry, the problem is not people's freedom to walk into a Scientology centre and take courses. It is what happens to them after getting into Scientology that is the problem. Horror stories abound, like that one that was posted above.
I gotta laugh at Anonies mis-representation of freedom. Probably most Scientologists study or audit a few hours a day. This means walking into and walking out of a church every day. This means working jobs, maintaining a home, children in Boy Scouts, etc. etc.
Anonies fail because they soooo misrepresent reality. But hey, listen, I think there is a real future for you in news casting and media writing where reality is less important than emotional appeal. But any sane person easily sees you mis-evaluate your date, overgeneralize your data, massage your dark pile of carpet sweepings into some bizarre cookie monster.
Lou: Anon, there is a two-inch layer of dust on those stories.
France and Belgium charges were only filed this year, how is that old?
Moxon was in court a couple weeks ago and Germany in September on Scientology business. How is that old?
People went to prison for Operation Snow White. Moxon was an unidicted co-conspirator. That means that even though he wasn't charged, he was part of it, making his actions criminal. You associate with Criminals. Hell you have an entire division (Crimanon) set up to bring in criminals.
How do you resolve the fact that people who join Scientology via Crimanon are criminals? You're being hypocritical Lou. It's ok for Scientologists to be connected to criminals and criminal actions but not Anonymous? At what point should we consider criminal action "old" and thus inconsiquential? a year? 5? 10? How do you claim that Scientology has reformed when your lead council (Moxon) was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest infiltration of the US Government ever (regardless of how low ago it was)
Finally, Scientology has never been considered a religion in Canada, it's a non-profit organization. Getting charitable status does not equal religious status, that's another mistake scientologists seem to continuously make.
Anonie - France and Belgium charges were only filed this year, how is that old? The Belgium filing was based on information collected in a Church "raid" of 10 years ago. The prosecuter studied the information for 10 years and recommended that no prosecution take place. However, a judge disagreed with him and we see headlines like we do. I haven't studied the "French charge", but expect is is similar, based on old information but someone in France feels it is necessary, NOW, to bring charges because of the recent recognition of the European Court of Human Rights, declaring Scientology to be a bonafide religion.
Terryeo, Belgium is based on a church raid that happened THIS YEAR, in I believe March or April in response to the "church" falsely advertising for jobs in an attempt to recruit. Yes, there's also charges stemming back from an investigation for the past 10 years but the police raided a Belgian CoS this year!
The European Court of Human Rights "recent recognition" was in 2006! Also it doesn't say what you think it does.
Russia has a process where religions need to register with the government. Scientology was registered with the Russian government. When it came time to re-register Russia basically made it impossible for Scientology to re-register by making them jump through a bunch of impossible hoops and flat out rejecting them. the ECHR handed down a judgement that said Russia just can't reject a previously registered religion because they no longer like it. However, they are free to reject the re-registration if Scientology goes through the proper steps, the government decides by looking at all the data impartially and decides to still reject Scientology's registration. It in no way states Scientology is a religion, just that Russia can't refuse a previously recognized religion in their country the ability to re-register without fairly considering it.
Finally, the ECHR does not superceed the governmental/judicial decisions of individual countries. Therefore Russia can choose to just ignore the ECHR if they really want to. That's why you're still banned in Greece and have an entire organization designed to monitor you in Germany. Russia and every other EU country is still free to tell Scientology to fuck off from their borders.
Here we go, here's an article about the Belgian raid in April of this year. You can see all the sources at the bottom of the article. What was that you were saying about the raid being 10 years old Terryeo?
"On Oct. 22, Judge Thomas C. Horgan imposed a one-year CWOF (Continuance Without a Finding) against Gregg Housh, who had been charged with disturbing an assembly of worship and disturbing the peace. As part of the plea, Housh was ordered to stay away from the Back Bay headquarters of the Church of Scientology and its new headquarters in Boston’s South End."
Gregg Housh plead to stay away from the Church? I guess that this was most welcomed. Any other details available?
The problem is on anti-Scientology sites there are only negative examples of how the policy "Handle or Disconnect" can be misapplied. I am sorry for that lady above because if you have read the policy (as I have MANY time) you'd know from the way the story is written alone (if she is telling the full truth - which I am going to assume for sake of argument she it) that whomever or whoever did her handling misapplied the policy - most especially by threatening her with a PTS declare [which by the way isn't per policy or appropriate to do].
Also, the policy is 'handle or disconnect' with the emphasis on handling. Additionally, per Scientology policy even if the daughter is 'rabidly antagonistic' her merely being connected isn't necessarily enough for her to have a 'PTS declare.' I know this for a fact because I had someone in one of my college classes who was rabidly antagonistic and I asked if I needed a PTS Declare and was told 'NO' so there is more to it than just being connected, it would have to affect your course/auditing gains or performance in life for it to even be considered an option. Further, even she did have all the things in such a bad state that she got a PTS Declare - then all she'd have to do to get back on to regular services is to do the PTS and Ethics courses and PTS & Surpressed Person Rundown (maybe taking 4-6 months tops) to put her at cause over her situation at which point the Declare would be lifted.
As for my personal situations, most of them have 'handled' with pretty easy handlings. I had one situation where I eventually disconnected, but even my family members who aren't Scientologists (for which is the majority of them) agree with this solution because the person is so anti-social he spread problems to all of them. In addition with the calm in my new life, I have been able to have a real relationship and marriage (5 years) now since disconnecting and my life has become me stable owning our own house, personal debt gone, better food, back in school, etc. Also, because I disconnected from him he has stopped harassing my mother's family, former co-workers, etc. - most of the people whom he harassed we'ren't even Scientologists!!! That whole dynamic has improved in terms of my relationship with it.
Just for the record even my cousin who is an MSW agreed with the assesment.
Anon Date: 2008-10-22 15:15:03 - you say that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said: the ECHR handed down a judgement that said Russia just can't reject a previously registered religion because they no longer like it. - That isn't completely wrong, but ignores the fundamental question Russia's refusal brought into the light of the Court's examination.
In the court's words: the Court (ECHR) considers that the interference with the applicant's (the Church of Scientology's) right to freedom of religion and association was not justified. - From the Court's statement at cesnur.org http://www.cesnur.org/2007/scientology.html
The ECHR determined that the Church of Scientology of Moscow was a "religious community” entitled to the rights afforded such communities by ECHR Article 9, which protects the right to freedom of religion or belief. - from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_Moscow_versus_Russia
You go on to say: It in no way states Scientology is a religion. That's not entirely true. The Court recognized the Church of Scientology of Moscow is a religious community, practicing a religion that fulfill the several articles the ECHR is charged with interpreting into law. It therefore ordered Russia to process Scientology's re-registration. Stated broadly, it recognized Scientology's religious nature and community as bonafide. The Court's reference to Article 9 and other articles are reason for its statements. The ECHR found there was a Moscow religious community called the Church of Scientology of Moscow; the group had been refused re-registration, it fined Russia and ruled that Russia must process their application for registration as a religious community.
As you all have seen by now, the Scientologists see Anonymous as an unruly mob... at least when they are not claiming that we are paid by "psychs" backed by the FBI or consorting with alien powers from the Big Dipper.
Yet in 2000 a German official visited the US and so Scientology decided to whip up an angry mob of Scientologists to attack her at the airport.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EYS7SpFTEI
The above video shows the Scientologist mob screaming Nazi and other epithets at her and trying to crowd in to do God knows what to her. Thankfully airport security was there. Two others were filming and near the end of the video, a creepy looking woman smacks his camera for filming the spectacle after taking his photo. Typical Scientology tactics where they think it is ok to film their enemies, even secretly and yet go ape when someone takes a picture of them.
You can watch the video and see that criminal activity isn't limited to members of anonymous or Scientology critics. Scientologists themselves often commit assaults at protests agianst people with a camera. They have even attacked tourists who had cameras in areas like Hollywood and Clearwater who had nothing to do with the protests. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Here is an example: http://www.huliq.com/66333/scientology-goons-disgraceful-hollywood-tourist-scandal
Here is the video on CNN iReport:
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-59339
Notice how the Scientology guards dress up like police? They even have badges, arm bands and radios. In Clearwater they even used to carry guns openly until the Clearwater police finally put a stop to it. This is an out and out attempt to impersonate a police officer, even if just by look. Police impersonation is a felony in the US. In Washington DC in February, a member of Anonymous was ordered to show ID by a Scientologist who claimed to be an officer. The Anon refused and the Scientologist ran off, realizing he had been caught out in a lie. So as you can see, Scientology consorts with criminals as well. Police impersonation is a very serious offense. It undermines the trust that people have in law enforcement when there are those who impersonate them openly in this fashion. Who are the criminals here? Anonymous, who are protesting this kind of action by the cult and have a few who make a bad choice and do things like DDOS, or Scientology who break far more serious laws on a regular basis?
Lou, you're great. I cannot admit to lies. Scientologists went to prison, and Moxon was unindicted co-conspirator in largest governement break in ever. You believe this is a lie?
Dear Scientologist,
"FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP. " -LRH HCO PL 21 October 1968
Fair game was not truly canceled. And just because you utilize the law for defense in some cases, doesn't always mean that you should.
I present you with another two relevant LRH quotes:
"The purpose of a lawsuit is to harass and discourage rather than to win," -LRH HCOPL 30 May 1974
"The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway . . . will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." -LRH "A Manual on the Dissemination of Material" (1955)
I welcome an explanation as to why the above should be embraced by any organization. Of course an organization has a right to defend itself. However when doing so with the express intent to harass, this is crossing the line.
It is true that all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance. But please explain to me why you defend an organization which pursue their survival to the point where it endangers the survival of others.
I quote from your own creed: "And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid man: To destroy his own kind; To destroy the sanity of another; To destroy or enslave another's soul; To destroy or reduce the survival of one's companions or one's group."
Paulette cooper is a person. Even if a critic, even if she opposed practices of the Church, and EVEN if she had beliefs which clashed with parishioners of Scientology. She is not exempt from your own creed; she is a person.
OSA went beyond litigation for Paulette. They outright destroyed her sanity, no doubt of it. When a person is sent to trial for crimes they never committed, who could hold on to their sanity? Let's put all the litigation aside for a minute. If a person is stalked, given threatening phone calls, and constantly hounded by people associating themselves with Scientology, it goes beyond mere reasonable defense!
"To get P.C incarcerated in a mental institution or jail, or at least to hit her so hard that she drops her attacks." -Operation freakout documents
The person who wrote the above is at odds with Scientology's own teachings. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Hundreds and hundreds of declared SPs endure the very same treatment, and for what? The inalienable right to practice a "religion"?
This is NOT about bigotry, and this is not about hate crimes. WE DO NOT DENY YOUR RIGHT TO PRACTICE YOUR OWN RELIGION. WE WILL SIMPLY NO LONGER ENDURE THE INHUMANE TREATMENT WHICH IS ENFORCED BY LEADERS OF SCIENTOLOGY.
That being said, we will not resort to said tactics. Our protests have been peaceful without exception, to date. You can say all you want that we are terrorists, or that we make bomb threats, but as some of you like to say, "Gotta have those valid cites."
We fight for the inalienable right to sanity of which so many have been deprived. We rally outside Scientology centers because we really do care about the people inside! We do this on our own time, and we only expect to be listened to in return. We do this for YOU!
And don't take my word for it, read the very testimony of a devout 20-year follower of Scientology.
"Scientologists went to prison, and Moxon was unindicted co-conspirator in largest governement break in ever. You believe this is a lie?"
No. If I would not be familiar with the specifics I could say that I won't admit to that because you fail to give any details but stick to a generality. It happens that I think to know what you are talking about. You are talking about a 30 year old story that is also being talked about here:
If this is what you mean, then yes, there were some scientologists going to jail for crimes they committed. That's justice. Like Guzner, the "hero" of this article, who might get 18 months of jail for trying to sabotage computer systems he did not own. And like a couple of other Anonymous members who are in the focus of law enforcement investigations, e.g. for breaking into scientology computers to manipulate data (sounds familiar?).
Tell me why this is not anonymous propaganda. I don't say it cannot be a true story. I have seen worse. But unsigned, nameless, bluntly one-sided stories have the smell of being made up.
Louanne. Thanks for taking the time to read it. I posted it at that link for brevity sake. If you wish to know the origins of the letter, then check out this link: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/7-general-discussion/heartwrenching-email-newly-ex-scientologist-why-30546/
As for propeganda, there is no definitive way of showing that it is authentic, beyond asking the original poster for details relating to who. At this point though, it can neither be considered authentic nor fake unless the person who wrote it came forward.
They seem to wish to remain anonymous at this point.
It is entirely possible that someone sat down and wrote the whole story for the purpose of decieving. However, the letter reads like a story to me. Based on the details given, I have no reason to suspect (instinctively) that it was written in malice.
However, assuming for a moment that it were true, would you wish to come forward with your name if you were the person writing the letter? Hours upon hours of auditing, and your whole life's secrets are given away. Those with the preclear's files on hand have access to information that could be deadly for you professionally and emotionally if used against you.
This is why so many are afraid to come forward with their real names when it comes to criticising Scientology, especially ex-members. That's partially the reason behind the Anonymity which Anonymous uses.
I admit that it is not proof in the sense of something damning, but based on the research that I've done, I personally give its originator the benefit of the doubt.
For those interested, I'll just quote the opening and ending comments from the person who posted it:
"A few weeks ago, I recieved this email on the San Diego Anonymous account. It was from someone who had claimed to just left Scientology, telling me a bit about her story and just wanting to share.
At the end of the email, I cried. It was one of the hardest things I have ever read, and made me think "This is why."
I wrote her back, and asked if I could share her email. She agreed, and there were a few changes made. I got the final versin of it she made with the changes to remove identifiers for her own safety. (There weren't many to begin with because she was still scared but there were enough for OSA to track her down if they read the original message.) The final one ended up back in my inbox on the 17th, and I printed this up to read to the San Diego anons at our global. I'll post the video when our camera anon gets back to me.
This is why, people. Make sure you have tissues handy - it's just too incredible not to share.
[STORY HERE]
I recieved this letter three days before a cease and desist notice was sent to my grandparents home, accusing me of being a terrorist. My grandmother ws angry at me, and hurt, for getting her involved by proxy, and the feelings of anger I had at the cult, dealing with my grandmother, and also having this weigh heavily on my mind almost tore me apart. I could not read this speech at the protest without tearing up.
I pointed her in the direction of ESB, and told her the last thing she should do right now is join us. I told her to get to know what she's missed, get to know her family, get her life in order, make sure she takes care of priorities. I told her not to make the mistake that so many of the old guard had made when they left - leaving Sci on a friday, and picking up a sign on monday, for a lack of better term.
At that moment - just from some newly ex Scientologist telling us what she's endured since we started in February, and the remarkable journey she's been through...
All we've been through...all the harrassment, all the stalking, all the drama, all the assaults, cease and desist notices...everything Scientology has done to us and everything we've done...
If all we accomplish in this campaign is to have reunited a woman with her family, and her new granddaughter, then all of this would have been worth it.
"I'm not registered on OCMB and I can't get the registration links to work on ESB, so if whoever has been posting this there please post this as well:
The original email I recieved from her was a little less coherent than this one. She signed her name only as "Ruth" and I didn't have a chance to respond to her until after I dealt with the family situation, how my relationship with my grandmother was almost destroyed by that letter that Scientology sent to her house.
I replied back and all I did was ask her if I could share that story. She sounded like she was on the road to recovery, but I'm an Anonymous, not an Ex-Scientologist. All the stories I've read from people that have gotten out sounded similar to this one - there was nothing unique in this story that hadn't been written before. That's why it didn't send up any red flags to me. I had no reason for it to.
The advice I gave her was to spend her time putting her life back together and not end up like some of the Ex Scientologists who have forgotten how to live and gone after the Church with the same intensity they had while inside it. This was a personal opinion of mine and I directed her to the Ex-Sci message board, as I felt it would be the best place to point her as opposed to OCBM, or god forbid, any of the forums we use. The last thing a newly freed woman in her 50s needs is to stumble into Thunderdome or the chans :)
She wrote me back with a few clarifications to her letter to make it easier to read to people, which is what I posted. The letter was the original with the changes she made, as she asked me to not share the original due to her still being afraid and paranoid. Can't blame her, honestly.
If it IS a fake story, I can't imagine why someone would take the time out to write our cell with it. There are some inconsistancies, rereading it (when not being floored by the emotional impact if it IS true) but what in Scientology isn't double think or contradictions? If it is fake, she's definately fooled me.
This type of story is all too common, which is why I believe it to be true."
Ok, we won't ever know if the story is true or not, unless the writer presents some verifiable statements. Until then I'd say: 10 out of 10 for anti-scientology trolling.
You are the first Scientologist that I have ever been able to get into a rational discussion about Scientology itself. So I'd like to ask a few rational questions.
Scientology has critics, this is obvious. Some of them have come forward publically, such as the ones listed on this page: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religious-extremists/
I quoted the Scientology creed earlier to say:
"That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives;
That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity;"
which further states that man is forbbidden:
"To destroy his own kind;
To destroy the sanity of another;
To destroy or enslave another's soul;
To destroy or reduce the survival of one's companions or one's group."
The above reinforces a message of humility, something very admirable and desirable.
My question to you is, even if they are the so-called bigots that they are described to be there, isn't the very act of profiling them in such a way depriving them of their santiy, and survival, and working towards their very destruction as a human being?
These people, should have no fewer rights than anyone, else bigots or not. Being bigoted about something should not make a person guilty before proven innocent, no matter how hateful or unorthodox they seem to be.
Now if one of them made a direct threat of violence towards a particular person, that is different, and constitutes harrasment. That sort of thing can be dealt with sufficently using law enforcement.
I still do not, however, see the need to publically defame the person by publishing statements about them in public places. Can you explain why this is necessary?
Ok cool, glad we agree that Scientologists went to prison. So then we also agree that Ken Moxon, the main CoS lawyer currently, as in October 2008, was an unindicted co-conspirator right? The guy practicing the law for CoS defense is the guy that helped.....break the law. Interesting. How is Stacey Moxon doing these days anyways now that I bring up Moxon?
Terryeo: "The ECHR found there was a Moscow religious community called the Church of Scientology of Moscow; the group had been refused re-registration, it fined Russia and ruled that Russia must process their application for registration as a religious community. "
Process, but not approve, that's exactly what I said. They couldn't just make scientology jump through hoops or deny them outright because they had previously registered Scietology as a religion.
They could however, process the request for re-registration properly and still deny the application. They just had to do it fairly instead of dicking scientology around. the ECHR never said they had to approve the application to re-register, just process it. At the end of the day it was still up to Russia whether they accepted the application to re-register.
To put it in simple terms for you, I can't kick you out of somewhere you have previously been allowed just because I don't like you. However, if someone fairly examines all the evidence and decides it would be a detriment to have you there then I am free to kick you out.
Yes Anonie, Process, but not necessarily approve. That's what you said and I've said, yes. The Court's statement confronts the element you imply, that the Church of Scientology might not be a bonafide Church, its members might not consitute a religious community. Russia's counter claim forced the ECHR to confront whether the Church of Scientology of Moscow is a religious community. The Court had to confront and respond to that issue, and did. That finding makes the situtation clear.
TG, watch it, you are close to the border of trolling.
"So then we also agree that Ken Moxon, the main CoS lawyer currently, as in October 2008, was an unindicted co-conspirator right?"
No, he was more than 30 years ago and never got convicted. As far as I know he is not "the main CoS lawyer" either (just for some Anonymous crap) but even if he would be, he would not be admitted to be a lawyer if there would anything wrong with his background. Not like Anonymous lawyer Graham Berry, whose lawyer cert was nuked because of vexatious claims against Church members.
"Scientology has critics, this is obvious. Some of them have come forward publically, such as the ones listed on this page: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religious-extremists/"
True.
"I quoted the Scientology creed earlier to say: That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives; That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity;" which further states that man is forbbidden: To destroy his own kind; To destroy the sanity of another; To destroy or enslave another\'s soul; To destroy or reduce the survival of one\'s companions or one\'s group."
Half of it, but correct (full version here: http://www.scientology.org/world/worldeng/corp/creed.htm)
"My question to you is, even if they are the so-called bigots that they are described to be there, isn\'t the very act of profiling them in such a way depriving them of their santiy, and survival, and working towards their very destruction as a human being?"
How does the presentation of these guys, who dedicate a big chunk of their day to destroy a religion and discriminate its members, deprive them of their sanity? The page you link to (Religious Freedom Watch) has documented the actions of these people and if they come across insane, well, that is what they might be then. They have as many rights as anybody else. Just as Scientologists have a right to stop their own rights being violated. Religious Freedom Watch has a lot of documentation to support their claims and presents them in an aggressive way. As long as the information is accurate I can\'t blame them and see no violation of the Creed which, BTW, also says: "That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense;".
"I still do not, however, see the need to publically defame the person by publishing statements about them in public places. Can you explain why this is necessary?"
I understand this as a defense against harassment and discrimination created by these people. It\'s meant to be a warning for others, to show them what these guys are up to. The documentation going with it also shows that most of them have been convicted for crimes/misdemeanors against scientologists.
If detailing a person's sexual habits, marital history, and employment details don't constitute as intentional denigration, I don't know what does. You claim that posting this information is made in reasonable defense. I simply do not see, however, how making these things public with a purpose to defame could possibly strengthen any argument supporting the Church of Scientology.
Show me ONE of those persons described who has any actual outstanding legal charges against them. Yes, it is understandanble that you'd want to make these people known if they seem to be committing hate crimes, I can understand that. But where are the crimes?!
Arnold V - I don't think it serves anyone's purpose to post and repost such things as you suggest. What you might do if you are interested is to take any name you find at that web site and google it. As I do so, and click the top few Google links, I find some have convictions, others have questionable activity. For example, do you feel the American tax dollar should be used to create a website that instructs terrorists how to make and deply a bomb? That professor guy does (or did) that, using his university website, which is paid for by tax dollars.
Thanks for responding. Unfortunately, what I have described is exactly what is being posted on religiousfreedomwatch. It reads more like a tabloid than a promoter of religious rights. Here's an example:
"Recently one of Touretzky’s fellow newsgroup members proved this hypocrisy by posting to the internet information about Touretzky’s visits to a local sex shop and the purchases he makes there. Of course not. On the contrary, he kicked up such a row that the Internet Service Providers in question took the sites down, regardless of the fact that they were violating that individual’s Constitutional rights."
Of course the person who discovered the information about David has a legal right to express their opinion and share information, but as soon as personal information is put in a public place, the issue becomes one of personal privacy. The publication of such information is not morally justifiable by any personal code, regardless of whatever accusations are being made against him. What David Touretsky buys at a sex shop should be only the business of David Touretsky. Making this information public does not act in defense for anyone, but is a blatant attempt to discredit him.
When googling his name it can be immediately seen that he is a still a Research Professor at Carnegie Mellon, a respected research institution. Had they found any problems with his activity, they would have revoked his status and position. No such thing has happened.
Furthermore, he removed the instructions from his website when he realized the position it put Carnegie Mellon in. Since 2004, he has hosted the instructions on his own website.
The underlying issue which David builds his position on is not one of malice, but a well-justified one which is still under heavy deabte. The argument is this: the instructions themselves still fall under constitutionally protected activity. While some may argue that terrorists could use this information for nefarious purposes, others say that even if they did it would still be protected by the nature of the constitution. The root of the issue is that if you start limiting free speech here, where does it end? What is the threshold? Should free speech become "Free unless it has potential to hurt someone"? What else falls under this category? What about instructions to make a hammer, which can be used to kill someone or could also be used to make a bench. This is a topic of debate and has no clear cut answers, unless you wish to ignore the obvious problems with enacting what you believe to be appropriate legislation to "fix" what you percieve to be the problem.
So to summarize: The person who posted the personal info about Mr. Touretzky had a right to do so. However, because it was private information of a highly personal nature, Touretzky had the right to remove it. Taking it down was not opposing or nullifying free speech, but supporting personal privacy. The bomb-making isntructions however, do not defame any one person and are legally allowed to be posted for educational purposes. This is not terroristic nor malicious in nature, but quite simply (in my humble opinion) exactly the type of behavior which is designed to be protected under the spirit and express intention of those who drafted the constitution of the United States of America.
My challenge still stands. Show me one real crime that has been convicted and documented by religious freedom watch.
Hey, 'ya Arnold. http://religiousfreedomwatch.org doesn't propose that it do as you say. You know, here is this site over here that seems distrubing to you, they are putting bits of information together about people who wear dark shirts on Friday, and you see that and you somehow think that Louanne or I have some connection with that site, are somehow responsibile for that site, that somehow, we MUST respond to you about that site, and respond NOW. So you issue your challenge - PROVE TO YOU ! - that those people wear dark shirts on Friday. Damn right, Prove it to you! But the point I'm making is this. The site doesn't propose to prove to you. What I found, I took Roger Gonnet (because he and I got into a sort of very mild back and forth on another site), googled the name and came up with a short list of crimes. Good luck with your stiff back.
"http://religiousfreedomwatch.org doesn't propose that it do as you say."
What I see are biased statements, twisted personal details, and text which is designed to provoke. What is being done to the individuals on that site can be done to any human being; it's simply sensationalism mixed with a little intrusion of personal privacy.
"You know, here is this site over here that seems distrubing to you,"
Yes.
"they are putting bits of information together about people who wear dark shirts on Friday"
What they are doing is finding personal details and sensationalising them. It's downright silly.
"and you see that and you somehow think that Louanne or I have some connection with that site, are somehow responsibile for that site,"
I never said nor implied anything of the sort. I may have implied that Scientologists run the site. However, when Louanne tried to defend those who operate that site in response, I decided to point out why I feel it is such a farce of a site to begin with.
"that somehow, we MUST respond to you about that site, and respond NOW."
Nobody said that you had to respond at all, much less at this very instant. You made a statement that they are comitting crimes, I found none. When a person spreads unreliable information, someone must challenge the offender. If you have any specific crimes that you'd like to point out, I'd gladly reconsider the validity of the site, but more importantly my opinion of your own veracity.
"So you issue your challenge - PROVE TO YOU ! - that those people wear dark shirts on Friday. Damn right, Prove it to you!"
I don't even know what to say to this. I can only assess that you are misinformed in stating that crimes exist when I can find no evidence of any. Anyone else reading this debate may fall into the trap of believing you, so I ask you to prove your position. That is a basic requirement in any sensible debate.
"But the point I'm making is this. The site doesn't propose to prove to you. What I found, I took Roger Gonnet (because he and I got into a sort of very mild back and forth on another site), googled the name and came up with a short list of crimes."
I'm not asking the site to prove anything to me. I'm merely asking you to back up your assertions with solid evidence. You've completely failed to do so thus far, and I don't see that changing unless you address my challenge directly, by pointing me in the direction of said crimes.
"Good luck with your stiff back."
Stiff back? Not really. More like a headache from dealing with your complete upheval of my questions.
Posted By: And now the news
Date: 2008-10-28 05:49:01
Flash! This just in!
Scientologist assaults Anonymous protester on camera and flees the scene of the crime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B2kRkaDVr0
Today a Scientologist smacked a member of Anonymous and then fled the scene rapidly, just minutes after filing a false police report about being "chased by Anonymous". After the police told the Scientologist he was wasting police resources and placing 911 calls for no valid reason, the Scientologist waited for the police to leave and then struck at one of the Anonymous protesters and hitting his camera. He then fled down the street at top speed leaving his victim wondering what he did to deserve being attacked.
One of the most horrible things I have ever read, from a kid who grew up in Scientology. This story would make Stephen King gape in horror it is so upsetting.
I think the worst part was about the killing of kittens by the poor girl's Scientologist stepdad. That's the part where I got up and vomited into the nearest garbage can, so please read this with caution. Maybe some of the scilons in here have had enough of their humanity sucked out to read it beginning to end without emoitonal effect, but I couldn't finish it after the kitten part. I had seen enough by then.
I denounce "Anonymous" because while it claims to be fighting some of the Church of Scientology's policies, it is really attempting to attack, insult and destroy the religion of Scientology.
The majority of articles and videos posted by "Anonymous" over the last nine months have targetted the "beliefs" of Scientologists. They rarely mention the church or its policies.
"Anonymous" cannot differentiate between a church and a religion. They blend the two together. They harrass Scientologists that have already left the church only because of the religion of those Scientologists.
"Anonymous" is a crusade. It is a loosely organized group of anti-religious fanatics that target anyone who dares to think or believe differently than they do. This isn't the Dark Ages. The Roman Catholic Church is no longer permitted to threaten non-believers with death if they refuse to convert.
Guy Fawkes was a Catholic extremist who targetted both the British government and the Protestants. "Anonymous" is more of the same. "Anonymous" wants a return to the Dark Ages where the masses are kept illiterate and ignorant. "Anonymous" wants a society where only priests and bishops are allowed to have access to knowledge. "Anonymous" is opposed to free speech and the freedom of religion.
I denounce "Scientology" because while it claims to be fighting some of Anonymous's policies, it is really attempting to attack, insult and destroy the rights of peaceful protestors.
The majority of articles and videos posted by "Scientology" over the last nine months have targetted the identities of Anonymous. They rarely mention the reasons why they protest or their peaceful protests. "Scientology" cannot distinguish between a cult and science fiction. They blend the two together. They harrass Anonymous that have been to peaceful protests only because of the masks that those people wear.
"Scientology" is a crusade. It is a tightly-structured organized group of anti-free-speech fanatics that target anyone who dares to disagree with them or believe differently than they do.
L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction author and anti-Phyciatry extremist who targetted both the APA and the IRS. "Scientology" is more of the same. "Scientology" wants a return to the 1950s where the masses are kept uninformed about its abuses. "Scientology" wants a society where only Scientologists who spend lots of $ are allowed to have access to knowledge. "Scientology" is opposed to free speech and the freedom from religion.
Posted By: William Johnson
Date: 2008-11-28 16:01:45
$cientology is neither a church nor a religion. It is merely a money-laundering scheme that takes advantage of the mental vulnerability of its' members.
Perfect example..the late $cientologist who was killed by the church.
He was mentally unstable, and when the church was unable to extract any more money from him, he was killed and now they are trying to deny that he ever was a $cientologist. He even took at least one of the L-rundowns, designed to prevent the very activity that got him killed!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
