Some thoughts about Independents

by Shelly Corrias (Britt)

Marty,

As you know, I have been following your blog for a while now. And as you know, I do not consider myself a Scientologist, yet I have many dear friends who are. Some, sadly, are still “in”. Many others are now out and free to pursue their own freedom. Me? I am guilty of “cherry picking” what I find useful. After 23 years in the “church”, I am still figuring out my own spirituality. But make no mistake*, I firmly believe it is my right as a human being, even more, as a United States citizen, to pursue my own spiritual path so long as it does not harm others of good will. (*thanks Danny, you trained me well and I could not resist.)

Seriously though. Something struck me today regarding Independents. You all have amazing faith and courage.

When I left the Sea Org and the Int base after 18 some years, I thought I would pay off my freeloader bill and get back in good standing, progress up the Bridge and all that. After a few weeks outside, that changed. I knew I was done. I wanted nothing more to do with those people or the subject they represented. The subject itself was so twisted and perverted. Not to run my case on you, but I was declared “clear” in 1979. I know without a shadow of a doubt that I stated the clear cog and there was no way in hell I had seen any issues on what it was or anything like that. I said it and I remember it like yesterday. It wasn’t until five or six years later that I read the HCOB that gives the clear cog, at which point I went “wow, yep, I said that! No question about it!” Nonetheless, I was “undeclared” and I’ve now lost track of how many “DCSIs” and “CCRDs” I had going back and forth between clear and not clear, plus Dianetics and Objectives and Grades and two Purifs and a Running program and endless sec checks and FPRDs. The last action I had before I left was Grade 1!!! Huh? And people, I was Sea Org – I wasn’t being regged for any of this! So it’s not solely a money making scheme, although I do believe that’s an underlying motive for DM.

After twenty three years in Scientology I was basically at the same point I started, and had no use for Dianetics or any auditing of any sort. Especially FPRD and sec checks. PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying this to challenge anyone’s beliefs. I am just relaying what happened and how upside down the practice had become. I won’t even go into the downright cruel use of “study tech” that went on at the Int base, like being forced to M9 issues en masse and not leave the building to go to sleep until you “F/Ned”.

After I left, it still took me a year or so to be able to talk to close friends or family about what I had experienced at RTC and Gold. Even then it was slow going. More than three years later, I did my first interview with the LA Times, and shortly after, with Andrew Morton for his book on Tom Cruise. Looking back, that was so very mild compared to what is being revealed today. Like a bean bag shooter compared to an UZI? Nonetheless, it helped a few others feel a little safer about speaking up and so the story goes. Fast forward four years and we now not only have whistle-blowers all over the globe, more and more people have the courage to walk away and embrace the idea that “what is true for you is true for you”. Every day!

Which brings me to my point. Independents – I applaud your courage and faith. Each of you has mustered up an incredible measure of faith and cojones. (what a great combination – faith AND cojones.) For those who believe that LRH’s teachings contain the only route to spiritual freedom, you have declared your independence from those who claim to “control” your route to freedom, for lifetime after lifetime. To me, that is brave in the extreme. That was a roundabout way of explaining it, but I hope you get my point. We may not see eye to eye, but you got my respect!

That brings me to my second point. Who on the outside is knowledgeable in trademark and copyright law? Even though I was thoroughly indoctrinated in the concept throughout my 14 years in RTC and all my other years in the Sea Org, how can anyone “trademark” or “copyright” a belief or a procedure that involves two people talking to one another? I mean, is that even possible? I believe there is a major flaw in their entire corporate set up and legal “control” over the subject and its application. OK, so I don’t have the right to go reprint the Self Analysis book. But who can legally stop me from sitting down with someone, or myself, and asking those questions contained in the book? Or even the NOTs pack. If I somehow have access to it, who can stop me from sitting down with myself or others and discussing it (read: asking the questions and getting an answer)? “Trade secrets”? The very words suggest not a religion but a for-profit business. I suspect the whole setup is a house of cards that could fall at any moment.

I feel if this were explored, we may just break the dike for others who are too afraid to walk away. I don’t believe this can stand up in a court of law. But, I am not trained in that law and others are. I feel it’s worth exploring, especially if we could then do a white paper or some sort of printed handout, in addition to whatever is disseminated through the internet. I think it would encourage others to break free, knowing that their own spiritual freedom is not at risk by doing so.

Best, Shelly

162 responses to “Some thoughts about Independents

  1. martyrathbun09

    Shelly,
    Thank you for:
    a) persevering.
    b) trailblazing (double meaning here) on helping run out 3D engrams. You showed courage long before a lot of us did.
    c) exposing another chapter of DM’s reverse Scn.
    d) providing your ideas on trademark and copyright. Believe me, a major project is well in progress along that very line; and your sense of things is pretty accurate legally.

  2. If a good lawyer said that this was a viable suit to be brought against the church, I would donate money to a war chest to make it happen.

  3. Hi Shelly,

    Thanks for bringing up this topic of trademark law. It’s a subject I have researched, and even have a close friend who is a corporate attorney knowledgeable in this area. He pointed out that there is precedent with the Christian Science religion. You may find this link helpful in giving more background on that case and how it applies to Scientology.

    http://www.patentcopyrighttrademarkblog.com/2009/02/trademark-and-religion.html

    Pertinent part from it:

    “Trademarks and Religion
    Dear Rich: I have a question. Is the name of a religion trademarkable? Why was “Christian Science” ruled generic and untrademarkable, while “Seventh-day Adventists” is trademarked?

    \\

    I’m so glad you asked. The short answer to your first question is “Yes.” Your second question, alas, is not so simple.

    Trademark issues regarding religion typically arise when dissidents of a religion splinter off, sometimes claiming to embody the “real” tenets of the original religion. A dispute then arises as to whether the offshoot can use the religion’s name. According to the Dear Rich staff, that’s what happened in both cases you cited.

    Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science in 1866, and then in 1889 established the Church of Christ, Scientist. A group of followers later split off and founded their own church, the Independent Christian Science Church of Plainfield. A dispute arose as to who had the right to use the term CHRISTIAN SCIENCE. In 1987, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled (Christian Science Board v. Evans) that CHRISTIAN SCIENCE was generic because the term and underlying precepts of Christian Science preceded the religious organization by 23 years and should therefore be free for all to use. (As one commentator noted, it was an odd point for the court to base its decision on, since most religious principles precede the resulting organization.) However, the name of the church — Church of Christ, Scientist — was not generic and was protectable. In a subsequent California case, decided in 2000 (Christian Scientist Board v. Robinson), a federal court made a contradictory ruling when it refused to find the term CHRISTIAN SCIENCE to be generic and ruled that two entities might coexist and claim rights if additional wording is added to avoid confusion — for example, the Indepenent Christian Science Church. In any case the church founded by Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Science Publishing Company have acquired additional trademark registrations, including several for the term CHRISTIAN SCIENCE.

    The Seventh Day Adventist case, decided in 2000 (Stocker v. General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists), was a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The TTAB ruled that since the Seventh-day Adventists had been using the trademark on its publications for over 130 years, the term was not generic and the church was entitled to maintain trademark rights.

    As you may have realized, there are two tricky aspects to the application of trademark principles to religion. One is that the government is prohibited under the establishment clause of the Constitution from getting involved in the “establishment” of religion. So, in order to apply trademark law, the courts must not rule on which religion best expresses the virtues of its founder — whether that means deciding which Sufi founded a sect, or which church best presents the views of Mary Baker Eddy. The second concern is that trademarks are signifiers for products or service in commerce and it is sometimes difficult to apply these “corporate” principles to religious entities.”

  4. This isn’t related to the post, it’s a question for Marty, and I don’t know where else to enter it.

    Marty: the author of the “ask the scientologist” blog is wondering aloud whether the “Preservation Project,” in which church members were dunned for huge amounts of money to preserve the works of LRH for eternity was actually a “big con” by Mr. Miscavige, He suspects that the preservation project was never actually completed, the money going to whatever DM wanted it for. Do you have knowledge of where this project stands?

  5. It’s been my feeling for many years that trade secrets cannot validly apply to doctrine.

    1) It’s a violation of the first amendment as it violates the establishment clause. I may not have a right to use the trademark Scientologist, but I do have the right to practice Scientology.

    2) In California, trade secrets do indeed involve economic benefit, where it strikes me that doctrine as economic benefit is antithetical to the CofS’s non-profit status. Pick one. You can have doctrine as a trade secret if you’re a for-profit entity (except insofar as the first amendment might disallow same). [1]

    3) I do believe churches can have trade secrets, e.g., member lists. Just not for doctrine.

    [1] (d) “Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
    (1) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
    (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

  6. Hi Shelly,

    It’s very helpful for me (and I’m sure many others) to hear your story. I’m still changing in all of this new, honest, and every day LOOK at the CoS. Your perspective is a valuable addition for me.

    You described the independents’ “faith and cojones”. Similar wording I’ve used is “compassion & stones”. Love it!

    Thanks again.

  7. Hi Shelly. Thanks for all you’ve done.

    I look forward to the day I can audit anyone/everyone without worrying who might bust down my door! I think this will be and I want to help create that environment any way I can. This blog has truly shone hope for me.

  8. Doc "Smith"

    Hey Shelly, thanks for the post.I’m sorry about what happened to you regarding the eval & inval. I have been a scientologist for over 30 years, but made the decision to co-audit up the Bridge. I started in 82 to train as an auditor, but couldn’t co-audit the DRD so was stuck there. After Ned, Level I & II, I went on staff at a mission and no longer had time for auditor training ( I did get sup and w/c training) and in the 90’s was part time org staff so never got to get back onto my training nor was able to afford the Grades. Now after your story and that of others it seems that I was saved a lot of grief. I trained through Level II on GAT and now am going to try to find un-alterred LRH on the levels and a twin and get it done outside the church.

    Regarding your comments on spirituality, I agree wholeheartedly. The tech was made and kept free for use. I still give people assists, and disseminate any tech that can help others. I won’t copy any copyrighted materials, but they can’t keep me from giving out data I know.

    I asked a latino friend of mine if he was Catholic the other day, he told me the Bible says nothing about having a religion, it says to be spiritual. I liked that idea. I got involved with Scn. because I had found knowledge that helped me and others and I wanted to use it, not because I needed a group to run around in.

  9. Shelly, thanks for your comm.

    I understand your views and how you could feel with all the betrayal you have experienced at the Int Base. I was there and knew you while your were in RTC and then move to CMU. I have experienced myself similar stories case, injustice and otherwise. And many have.

    However, I never for one second loose side of my believes, experiences and gains from the LRH tech. In other words despite all my experiences ( good or bad) being on staff as a sea org member, NO one can or will take from me my gains, my knowingness and awareness as a spirit.

    I know what I know.

    I experienced first hands the behavior of DM in many flows and looking back at it, I realized that the dude was in FEAR of his own staffs IE: ALWAYS doing inspections throughout the base with other RTC Staffs or Execs. Or while on a “comm cycle”, he will always try to introvert you. IE: me, Steve, Jeff, Marty, Mike and 100’s more. Including YOU.

    I mean would LRH need to have other staffs around to have a comm cycle? NO!

    Anyway, In my personal opinion you should not let DM take away what you have experienced with LRH Tech.

    Let’s not play his game!! He is not worse it.

    In my view, what is important is to continue the LRH legacy.

    Like you said “what is true for you is true for you” stay in full force.

    Note: “Constant and continual alertness is the price of freedom. Constant willingness to fight back is the price of freedom. There is no other price, actually.” LRH

  10. Maxim Zbitnoff

    Marty,

    I too no longer consider myself a scientologist, independent or dependent. Yet, I love this blog and seeing people stand up in their own truth…. not to mention the ongoing drama of the authoritarian structure and suppression coming unraveled. The KR on Claire was a priceless glimpse of the whole church madness summed up. Nothing can squelch life itself.

    That you are able to accept and include others no matter that they have different beliefs speaks volumes as to the how secure you are in your own knowing/not-knowing and being.

    ~~~~Max

  11. Mike Lemeron

    Hi Shelly,

    You bring up some very good points here. Personally, I believe that 2 ministers of the same faith would argue about certain things in their own religion. I do believe that a person’s spirituality is totally unique to them and discovering that is an individual and personal quest. To me, the tech works. And I do not condone DM’s version of Scn. I firmly believe that if those two points are common to a person that they are, in fact, an independent.

    Mike

  12. Dave Adams

    The Church can trademark the name scientology, and no one else can use it.

    The Church can copyright the writings of LRH and no one can make copies.

    But you can use scientology as long as you don’t use the name, and you can buy the books and use the techniques in them, or even rewrite the materials from you own understanding.

    It is a patent that would apply to technique and the church has not patented the tech, only parts of the emeter. You can easily find similar Galvanic skin response biofeedback devices from other vendors.

    Scientology is free except for some considerations about it.

  13. Theo Sismanides

    Shelly, thanks for bringing this up and for sharing your story and ideas with us with enough guts, saying you are not a Scientologist. As a matter of fact we all aren’t in a way, anymore. We are Independents and have free thinking.

    The first time I was ashamed to be a Scientologist and a Sea Org Member was when the yugoslavian war was taking place back in 1992-3 etc.

    The politics of it are sometimes so complicated that one cannot but get confused. But what struck me is that the church never made any difference in any war, either by stating something reasonable about it or somehow playing some role to end the war.

    The church under DM was always very careful and usually took a conservative side on things.

    Innocent people were killed in the vicinity of Greece and we were martyrs of that. And the church didn’t do anything. And the Scientologists couldn’t do anything.

    That is a big shame for me.

    It so happens that today still there is war and there is many things which are non optimum and Scientologists deal with minor issues. Yes, we need to take back the church or whatever we can out of the Tech. But that will only happen by expanding our sphere of influence.

    So, I am happy to hear Marty saying he is working on a big project along these lines.

    One cannot KNOW all that he/she does and remain SILENT. His/her KRC would go to pieces. One then can only work towards a higher state of existence despite all obstacles against him/her.

    In this light I have been saying to all of you, let’s organize this thing and let’s work together. One cannot do it alone. LRH didn’t. Life is bleeding daily and conditions change to the worst when one is not ready for Old Man Sea (for the SO member who know of this).

    Whatever else is said by whoever, what finally counts is did WE do it? You know how much could be done, with the name or without the name of Scientology, for the world, should we unite and start producing results? Real results, not PR and mind control and money making machines and ideal buildings with robot parishioners.

    To all the free spirits here, I urge you to put your shoulder to the wheel and create a new movement for planet Earth. We are the ONLY free people who are really knowledgeable in the field of Spirituality with results and practical methods. Let’s do it!

  14. Aylesbury Wolf - a Hubbard Knight

    I still have my copY of the original Tech Vols – these where a Christmas present to myself back in 1978 in London where I was on lines.

    At the very front of each volume is a photo of LRH, on the opposite page is this:

    I’ll not always be here on guard,
    The stars twinkle in the Milky Way
    And the wind sighs for songs
    Across the empty fields of a planet
    A Galaxy away.

    You won’t always be here
    But before you go,
    Whisper this to your sons
    And their sons –
    “The work was free.
    Keep it so.”

    L. RON HUBBARD

    May the Tech be with you.

  15. I am curious about that too. I’ve been curious about the property in New Mexico. It seems (although it’s hard to glean accurate info from bits and peices) that the Church bought a property, put up buildings, build an underground storage bunker for the materials, and then sold it to the US Governement. Then bought another property. The deed is online, but it could be fake I guess. I guess there could be a reasonable explanation for it, but at best it seems like a waste of money, labor and time. Maybe one was built and it wasnt good enough?

  16. Shelly,
    I’m very much on the same page as you (just look at my nick). I was “in” for 30 years, I’ve been out for 5. I have adopted a quote from Abraham Lincoln: “When I do good, I feel good, when I do bad I feel bad. That’s my religion.” From all the encounters I’ve had in my life there’s nothing that compares to the class, guts, compassion, sheer eagerness to do the right thing, right all wrongs, that I’ve seen in the people I’ve met in Scientology. I sure wish all that very best in humanity can become in some way or another beneficial to mankind. Maybe Marty and Mike can extoll the very best of LRH and run with it and take mankind to the next level
    I sure route for them!

  17. Harry Curmudgeon

    John mentions that “The Seventh Day Adventist case, decided in 2000 (Stocker v. General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists), was a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). The TTAB ruled that since the Seventh-day Adventists had been using the trademark on its publications for over 130 years, the term was not generic and the church was entitled to maintain trademark rights.” but what is interesting is that at least three other churches have been using the term “Seventh-day Adventist” for many years with no legal challenges. The Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement has been using that phraseology since 1925. The All Union Church of Free and True Seventh-day Adventists has been around in Russia since at least World War II. The General Conference of Davidian Seventh-day Adventists was formed in 1930 although it has since splintered into insignificance. The wording seems to be the key. A name that clearly differentiates would appear to be a legal option. Perhaps the “Church of Scientology Reform Movement”??

  18. Hi Shelly,
    I agree with you 100%. I worked (and lived) with you for quite some time.
    While I was in RTC I never challenged the status quo on RTC being the owner of the technology (copyrights, TMs, etc.). I watched for years as Ute and Kerstin methodically worked to maintain TMs around the world, and I listened to the big stories of legal battles. I believed at that time that anyone who delivered Scn outside of The Church was a squirrel — regardless of what they were doing. I had the view that delivery of the tech outside of “The Church” was not standard and so was immediately deemed illegal and squirrel — but I never sat back to think about the original grass roots of Dianetics, where any Joe Schmo could open the book and simply start auditing another (regardless of whether they were affiliated with The Church or not).

    Since leaving, my views have changed 100%. I consider that the policy technology that I have learned is mine. After all — it is in my head. I apply it daily and my own business life is going great rockets as a result.

    Basic Scn practices, such as the Comm Cycle, ARC, KRC, The Way to Happiness and Study Technology are all simple basics that a person either uses or not. Regardless of what the deal is with the trademarks or copyrights of the books they came from, the technology itself is taken on by a person and simply becomes a part of their own beingness — a part of their own operating basis in life. Nobody can challenge me (or any one else) on the rights to use and apply them.

    And when I concluded (like you) that those persons I had slogged it out for for so many years can all take a hike — and when I questioned my own spirituality, and had a really indepth look at my own beliefs (and it took quite a few years to really sort through some of the BPC and upset connected with it), I decided that I was a Scnst, but that I would apply what I wanted in life, and when I wanted to. I mean isn’t that what LRH wanted? An increase in self-determinism!

    My plans to pay my freeloader bill and handle my “amends” dissolved and I decided that I would simply hook up with those with like views and attitudes and get on with my life.

    And what do you know! Life is going really really well ever since.

    I have not been able to declare (publically) my independance, but that will come in time. I am already declared in my own head.

    Would love to catch up with you some time. I have asked someone for your email and I will send you a personal hello.

  19. I have a related question. There appears to be documentary evidence that CST built it’s first vaults on land near Trementina, New Mexico from 1986-1992, and then once the vaults were completed by 1992, CST sold the land (including the vaults) to the US government in 1992.

    See this link for the documents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trementina_Base#History

    Does anyone have any more details on what this was about and whether these documents are accurate and reflect what they appear to reflect?

  20. This is what I like about independents and your blog, Marty. Even those who somehow think differently do have a voice.
    Would she walk into a church of DM, she would be labelled all sorts of things, open-minded, dilettante, etc. She would be ridiculed, condemned and regarded as a general A-hole.
    You guys give her beingness and voila, true communication can take place. Well done.

  21. If you guys haven’t seen this, it’s a great documentary by a man who is seeking to find out more about Scientology. He’s a comedian but he comes across a group of Independent Freezoners in Europe and Russia and actually reads and learns about Scientology. You see how the mind set of the Freezoners is completely and uttery different then that of those who are indoctrinated by the confines of the CoS.

    It’s six parts, I’m posting part 1 –

  22. On a legal standpoint, my attorney friends agree that anything written can be copyrighted, but their use not so much. So, what the comments say are true. Legally, you can have a SA book and do whatever you want with it except to make copies, post to web, etc. Simple.

    Regarding use of the tech, there cannot be any restrictions on that. Except for use of GAT as I believe it is an internal issue and is protected as such. Then again, who wants to use GAT anyway? 🙂

    Trade secrets implies profit making. It’s that simple. This subject was touched upon previously.

    I am doing some work on my own as you can see.

    And, Shelly, very nice post. It indicated to me. I was also planning to be a good boy after leaving SO and now look at us…

    ml

    w

  23. While on the subject of trademarks, confusion and challenge over the German version of the word Scientology (Scientologie), went through an interesting challenge in May 2000, brought before the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “WIPO Center”). http://tinyurl.com/2excyud

    The use of “Scientologie” stems from the work of a Dr A Nordenholz published in 1934.
    http://tinyurl.com/2ea8cce

    Perhaps this decision can be used as a precedent in being able to use the name of Scientology itself in some way, such as the “Independent Scientology Group of Corpus Christi”, etc, since the invention and idea predates the 1950’s development of the subject, similar to the position noted in the cases above.

    Predating the use of “Scientology”, were the writings of the subject, “Scientologie” in 1934 by Dr. A. Nordenholz,

  24. I am curious too.
    Somehow while looking for KSW radio today I came up with a Church run Volunteer Ministers site.

    They listed where are the VM’s have been recently and where they are now, but I doubt it.

    Especially Nashville, they aren’t there . Carefully never mentioning specific numbers.

    Seems anyone on the inside is free to say anything at all, as long as it isn’t the truth.

    And the thing that I have wondered for YEARS is;
    If indeed they have preserved anything did they preserve the REAL tech, or some bastardization?

  25. Dear Shelly, thanks for your write up. Being trained on the subject of Clear, I’d like to tell you that your handlings were squirrel and run by a suppressive corporate. Your state of Clear is valid without any question according to LRH materials. Whatever your decision is going to be for the future is and will always be up to you and for this I wish you the best. ML Ignazio.

  26. Dear Shelly,
    Thank you so much for your message!
    The point you bring up on copyright is a very very good one and in fact I believe the crux of the matter for many independents that are practicing in silence or not at all for fear of legal attacks from the co$. Many of us have been made to sign ridiculous waivers (me included) before we left making us think we have no rights whatsoever. But there is some excellent coverage on these copyright points here http://www.stss.nl/en/legal/ written by a trademark lawyer no less. And you see the materials are freely available on the web for anyone to download from this site and start running a group or course. Materials are constantly being added and 1000s of materials have been downloaded and the church has not done anything about it and frankly might never. Because if they do they have to stand before a Dutch court and answer to the legal questions I linked above. And don’t forget that the Church has already lost in front of a Dutch high court previously (Karin Spank case). As far as the validity of waivers and affidavits, I can only tell you from experience that after I made the channel 4 movie (which Marty kindly linked to here: https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/the-beginners-guide-to-l-ron-hubbard/) all I got was threats. Empty threats. OSA Int people coming to my house bringing old friends from the church to persuade me to stop the film from going out, bringing Auditors to convince me to have ‘just one little session’. But mainly threats of legal action that will ‘ruin my life’. And that is how SPs work, by threats and threats alone. And in fact that is all they are. I believe this is true to using even ‘their’ so called Trademark of Scientology. I personally know of several independent Orgs in Europe who use the term Scientology in their promotion and never had a proplem. Anyway, I am rambling now. I just wanted to share the link with the legal points above because they are well thought through arguments which augment yours and thank you for your support. Dominic

  27. froghopper

    Shelly thanks for your write up Its a sad state of affairs and I hope and sincerely hope that justicew will get done to remove DM.
    I left myself approx 23 years ago more or less the same time as Bill Roberston and others left
    Already then it was seen and of alter-is and the abuse by RTC.Myself was going to stand for that
    so I decided its time to g.The Indept’s now has grown and doing well thats covering all Indept people able witrh there knowledge of the Tech able to provide to any one this covers those networks that support Indepts , Free Zone America and across to Europe and Rons Org .

    Can any one leak me to a reliable email to Marthy / also Mayo
    Any support Marty please email

  28. froghopper

    Sheely
    I need to correct a fews points I was not going to stand for the abuse and decided to go I respected LRh and for his developments remarkable having had the chance to work with Him at St Hill, and The ship.
    I do worry about Diana ( Ryan ) and her safety The daugther of L.Ron Hubbard what ever her last name is these days, if I am wrong correct me , She is still in the church Yes ? does any one know that ?

  29. Overdriver


    how can anyone “trademark” or “copyright” a belief or a procedure…”

    It is very “funny” that LRH could use anything from Buddhism to the other thinking men he listed in Science of Survival for example for free, but you can’t use from him anything only for fee…

    where is the “exchange”?

  30. Dear Shelly,
    Thank you for bringing this up!
    Isn’t it amazing, that while the labels are trademarked by the church, the actual Tech is fading out there. Study tech is out – memorizing is replacing the conceptual understanding. Misused Ethics takes a place of Qual. Data is been accepted without evaluation, with no responsibility, that is delegated to the church authority. With each passing year there is less and less Scientology left in the church, but only labels valuable in court.
    DM is one example of it: “OT” that operates not on the level of intention, but effort ; “auditor” that applies force instead of ARC; “Leader” that misleads toward the wrong targets… Is he a Scientologist at all? Doesn’t look to me like one from all the testimonials that I see.

  31. Dear Tara, I’ve been doing just that since jan this year, it’s a real joy for me and for my pcs. Don’t hold yourself back. DM has no power over the Independents!

  32. Dear Shelly

    We have left the church long ago and we have been harassed by the copyright and trademark issue on and on. We know pretty much about it and you can also find a lot on the net, however, there are some points I don’t like to discuss broadly here.

    Please see also first here: http://www.ronsorg.com (Leagal) and http://www.stss.nl

    Max Hauri

  33. martyrathbun09

    Dominic, you said it all on the attack you received for participating in the best media piece on Scientology since LRH interviewed with Hitchman.

  34. Ah yes, Dominic, thank you for that comment.

    Intellectual property protections for Scientology publications, marks and applications in the Internet age are not what they used to be. The World Wide Web has changed much about that.

    (big grin)

    BTW, I watched that wonderful video of you and the Indian-British comedian just this past weekend. I was reminded to do so when I saw you hooking up with your old friends Tom and Linda here at Marty’s blog. The program was absolutely wonderful. And you are delicous!

    Just Me

  35. Shelly,

    That’s very interesting (tragic but still interesting) that you were jerked around on your Clear status even though you were in the SO and no money was to be gained by it. There’s been a lot of talk about Miscavige being totally money-motivated, but I don’t think that’s his main drive, and your experience is a good example.

    LRH says a true SP lives in terror that others will get stronger. Sure, DM wants money and power thinking those things will help to protect him, and he can never get enough of either to really feel safe so he gets obsessive about it, but what really keeps him going is the effort to make sure nobody actually gains true OT abilities. Just about every off-kilter action of his can be understood in those terms.

    Alter the tech to make it less workable. Price it out of reach of the average Joe. If Joe is still on board, suck all of his money into the IAS or Ideal Org fund. Throw in extra Objectives and other arbitraries. And if someone gets past all of those barriers, be sure to invalidate their Clear status and any subsequent OT levels and send them back to the beginning of the Grade Chart.

    There’s also been a lot of talk about OT IX and above, and whether those would ever be released. Based on the above, I’d say if they do exist Miscavige will only release them when and if he’s found a way to cripple the process and eliminate the gains.

  36. The latest issue of “International Scientology News” 2010 “Special Decade Edition” lists among other stats this:

    “Mustering our 6,000 Volunteer Ministers, we then trained an army 200,000 strong from 170 nations. And they have now proven that something can be done about it to more than 10 million people–which is tenfold everything in the previous decade”

    There are a bnuch of stats in this mag I dont know what they mean. They seem to be deliberately vague or unmeasurable. The big stats are either anecdotal (I gave one woman who looked sad an assist and she felt better), or very non-specific (Due to my efforts, the business is running better).

    In my experience, a person will give “stats” like that if they arent producing or are in non-e or something. A new salesman might say “yeah, I talked to a lot of people today and, you know, I think they are thinking about it. I know they will buy a Chevy, maybe not here, but they will…..I handed out a Chevy bumper sticker to everyone and gave coloring books to the kids….blah, blah, blah”.

  37. I just figured it out.

    That list is probably everybody who did the VM course, or put their name down as a VM as some time. I’m probably on that list.

  38. Dave Adams,
    Not a wholly accurate assessment. Close, but not quite.

    There are various laws applicable, including the Fair Use principles, with many, many case precedents and guidelines used to determine Fair Use.

    There are also various points, as you do mention, on ‘patents’ and such. Shelly’s question, can two people sit down and audit each other?, is answered emphatically YES!

    Scientology is a legal mark. However, that mark must be used and protected according to the laws that apply. Including, among others, Fair Use.

    There comes a point when the mark becomes, ‘generic’, for an example of the interpretation of the laws regarding this subject.

    My point is that, under DM, he has so badly mismanaged things that even this area, that of marks, has ‘suffered’ his particular brand of handling and today the situation is far from what it was, even last year.

    The body of work is cleanly and clearly out of his control at this stage of the game. One can go from the beginning to the end, out of his rapacious and jealous grasp. Not only that, but there are some of the best and most highly trained auditors, CSes and tech personnel in the world, daily doing just that, and DM has absolutely no say or ability or legal legs to do a bloody thing about it.

    Too late, and precious little he can do to prevent the cure to his ‘brand’.

  39. Sitting on my bookshelf is a book by Allen Upward, called “The New Word”, published in 1910. It uses the word “scientology” three times. So, the use of the word definitely precedes Nordenholz or even the birth of LRH. Originally it was Mary Sue who brought the word to Hubbard’s new philosophy.

    One thing I noticed last time I was briefly connected with the Church is that there are very few Clears being made. OK, they were scarce enough before, but now the PCs are usually NED completions. Bulls**t, they are overrun clears.

    Congratulation on going Clear in 1979. Realize that whatever crappy mental phenomena you may experience is not your own case. Also, all this crazy squirrel tech, policy and injustice in the church is just other people’s dramatizations as well. Scientology is just a set of tools for you to use, and people should be perfectly free to “cherry pick”, in my opinion.

    The DCSI I did outside the church was amazing. I have no doubt that I am clear. In the church, I am not clear, so that in itself makes it impossible for me to proceed on the bridge in the church.

  40. Dominic,

    I just wanted to say how much I loved that movie. Your spirit of play and uptone approach to handling things was beautiful. I loved it. Thank you so much for doing it.

    Christie

  41. Aside from the legal arguments, the logic of the Church postion is patently ridiculous: 1. Scientology is only valid inside the CofS. 2. Scientology is the only hope for one’s eternity. 3. David Miscavige isn’t just the “Pope” of Scientology, he IS Scientology aparently. Conclusion? My eternity depends on David Miscavige. Okey dokey then…

  42. NOTSaware~Glad to hear it. Live anywhere near the Cajun swamplands? I’ve got some refreshment to do. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
    What’s awesome is to even think it’s possible for me to do again!

  43. Dave~Or Anyone who knows~Has someone worked out their own version of how to study/learn for kids? I’d love to see it. tmb.stuff at gmail.com

  44. I’m going to ‘piggyback’ on Tatiana’s comment, one aspect of it anyway, to communicate to Once Upon a Time a point he brought up on the last thread.

    Tatiana said “Study tech is out – memorizing is replacing the conceptual understanding.”

    This is a major true observation.

    Michael, as you mentioned in the previous thread, it is conceptual understanding that is what works. This is covered in several Word Clearing Series issues, but it’s also covered in the issue of 30 July 73, Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials.

    “A chronological study of materials is necessary for the complete training of a truly top grade expert in these lines. He can see how the subject progressed and so is able to see which are the highest levels of development. Not the least advantage in this is the defining of words and terms, for each, when originally used, was defined, in most cases, with considerable exactitude, and one is not left with any misunderstoods. It is for this reason that the Saint Hill Briefing Course checksheet should consist only of the chronological materials, studied in chronological order, excepting only the Study Tapes (Primary Rundown) which should be done first if not previously done properly.”

    Take the word ‘sympathy’, as came up in the previous thread. It is used to denote an emotional Tone Level, as well, and this is clear in the tapes of 53 for instance, the idea of ‘imitation’ or ‘duplication’ a ‘co-wavelengthing’ and such.

    Another is the use of ‘anchor point’. This term originates in the PDC lectures, which are PRIOR to the Factors being written. It is used variously to denote any dimension point, or specifically those that define a particular space, and even to denote an ‘attention unit’. What is an ‘attention unit’? Well, it’s simply one of those dimension points. It’s a ‘particle’ of awareness. It’s a ‘something’ that is just barely something. And he uses it interchangably with ‘anchor point’ in various lectures.

    You are right, conceptual understanding has no substitute. I just heard a tape where LRH is saying he’s having a hard time finding the words to use to describe what it is he knows conceptually.

    It is as you mentioned in an earlier thread, there are those little comments here and there where you go ‘Oh, THAT’S what he’s trying to say. I GET IT NOW!’

    One lecture, on the Axioms, he says he’s got to give it because the Axioms may not ‘jump out’ for you when you read them.

    It is, a ‘heuristic’ method that is needed in study too. That is, one that involves the student posing and resolving questions and ‘finding out’ for themselves. It involves that ‘trial and error’, and extrapolation of data in an effort to grasp it, to experiment in ‘thought’ even, and in practical example of ‘is this true’ , ‘does this exist’ and what is ‘this’ that he’s talking about. Otherwise, it’s just so much spoofed data, and not one’s own.

    I can ‘sympathize’ (the idea of ‘co-be’) with the man in this difficulty of expression. After all, what he’s describing hasn’t been done fully before. Some good hazards at it, some spot-on descriptions too, but what he’s getting at is itself a prime barrier to getting what he’s getting at: we are thoroughly ensconced in it and it’s tough to get outside of that to see what it is in which we’re ensconced.

    You, Michael, are well ahead of many others in the effort to get what it is he’s saying. (I don’t mean to be patronizing in this statement either, more with due respect and admiration).

    My suggestion is to follow the path he took, each and every step as much as possible, and it is real to me at least, you’ll sort out exactly what it is he said and know with certainty what this subject entails.

    It IS what it purports to be. The ‘boots’ are on your feet too 🙂

  45. Typo alert in my post. ‘Spoofed’ should be ‘spoonfed’. Ooops.

  46. Dominic~Thanks for the link. Totally awesome piece you did!

    I was convinced, coming up from mission lines and getting in right when upper management was trying to get rid of any/all evidence that Mayo ever existed, and over time seeing how Cl IV orgs reacted to “squirrels” ~ it worked to put me in fear of auditing in the field 12+ years later. Why would I want to bring that on myself and my young “non-CofS” family? No way!
    I’m so glad to get a reality from you – real life instead of the trumped up pretend world I had envisioned.

  47. oh, Micky, you’re so fine … !

    (that’s probably lost on you if you’re less ancient than I am).

    lunamoth

  48. Shelly,
    Hello again! Well done for speaking your views. Thank you for all of your work in the S.O. and I for one am better for it.

    I’ve not told you this but I will now. One day, back at the Base, I was in a particular not so happy mood about things going on there. I was coming out of the old spa, the Qual area, up that ramp and out the glass doors, I remember I saw you and you had the same little smile that you do in the picture above. Whatever it was that was bugging me evaporated.

    I think DM has particular zeal in targetting those who are endowed natively with life force in abundance.

    Yours, just by a look, made my life better.

  49. How about “The Church of Scientology, Non-Squirrel Version?”

  50. ooops, that new name for the indie church (above) was supposed to go under Harry’s comment, below.

  51. Ditto, Dominic! That was a lovely, effective and
    influential piece. In addition, you are adorable : ) Very well done!

    lunamoth

  52. Yet another realization of it being all talk and no action and how I’ve been fooled for so long by that!

  53. This is an issue. Because the Freezoners depend on fall offs from the Church. Most will not reach out to new people or get involved with recovery cycles, which are plenty on ESMB. They cannot advertise or hang out signs. They cannot set up missions. In this way DM has managed to stop the spread of the religion. My own thoughts are a class action law suit against the RTC for breech of contract and failure to perform. There has been an implied contract that they will expand and keep in KSW. All of which they have failed on. There are key points in the ethics book which qualify them as a suppressive group. They have violated every trust. Beyond that, we Scientologists are problem solvers. I have not let any formalities stop me from moving up and continue to introduce new people and work on recovery cycles. I have one selectee who is a clear and on the L’s and has never stepped foot in an Org. I am in the process now of pulling my others selectees that are on formal lines, off. Because I have had it with the complaints!!!! Anyone I have on Church lines now has been major upset in some way! Frankly, the PR now has taken a deep south dive. The mere word “Scientology” has people ducking under rocks. The Dianetics book written in 1950 does not have many new discoveries that were made after and can be misleading and bring dissapointment. I think the best solution is to start a new group that is not even catagorized under religion. Something new and fresh. Hubbard did it, so can someone else. Marty has already managed to do things Hubbard could not. Hubbard lived in a different time in a different world than the one we occupy now. In the meantime, it would help for anyone in a protest mood to actually contact legal and justice terminals with KR’s.

    http://www.justice.gov/ag/

    http://caag.state.ca.us/

    http://www.riversideca.gov/mayor/

    Your knowledge reports should go to the U.S. Attorney General with CC’s to the Attorney General of your state and to California where the Int Base is located.

    Any reports of abuse or crimes. If you do not report it you are being an accessory! You are not under any obligations to be on a withold from your fellow citizens to Protect David Miscavige’s criminality!

  54. Dear Shelley

    Thank you for sharing your story.

    The cruelty of this organization does not cease to amaze me — it took many people to decide to give you this messed up auditing! And all I can say is you are one powerful chic… I mean, they went through a lot of trouble to mess with you!

    And here you are, stronger and braver! And what a great smile!

    Love to you-
    Mary Jo

  55. Suzanne aka "ButterflyChaser"

    Hey, Shelly – wow – we are sooo on the same page!

    My husband and I just “came out” yesterday on Jeff’s “Leaving Scientology” blog and have expressed viewpoints very similar to yours.
    I’m right there with you. Even though I’m not a Scientologist anymore, I am part of the human race and I will not allow my or other’s Constitutional or Human Rights to be trampled on. “Indie” or “Non” – we are all united in handling the abuses of the church. We are all brothers and sisters in this effort. And although I won’t be part of rebuilding the organization, I wholeheartedly support those who will and bless them a thousand times over.

    Marty, Steve, and all you courageous independents – thank you for “keeping the tent open”. I love you guys.

  56. Interesting how this thread pops up right now.

    I was thinking of writing a post to Marty asking his opinion and those who read this blog on how ‘scientology’ could be salvaged, the technology, not the organization.

    The C of S has been so thoroughly discredited now, I don’t think just getting rid of the upper management goons would be enough to restore confidence in the organization, and perhaps a new organization, such as ‘The Reformed Church of Scientology’ or some such would be needed.

    And of course, the notion of trade marks and copyrights etc., would need to be sorted out.

    The notion of practicing Scientology by a non C of S member was never really a question, so I was wondering if a new organization as mentioned above is workable?

    My understanding that anyone can pretty much follow any spiritual path and that no one can really nail them for doing so, and so I wondered if non C of S persons could declare their faith to be based on the works of LRH, and so have the ‘right’ to access the works of LRH, all of them, and the ‘right’ to use them as they see fit.

    It would be interesting to know for sure if there was a legal opinion somewhere that allowed such an organisation to be created, and the source LRH material to be the basis of what that organization offered to it’s ‘parishoners’.

    If so, then a shell organization could be created to test the legality of it’s existence. If it won, then the dam would be forever broken.

    Any opinions?

  57. Mickey I was going to post this today. You beat me to it. People don’t asume you can not do something before you tried or studied it.

    When not explored thouroughly something still remains a possibility.

  58. crashingupwards

    Hi Shelly. I am glad your doing well.

    I noted your comment that you do not consider yourself a Scientologist. I can relate to that but at the same time I know and use a lot of the “tech”, as needed. We know what we know.

    But the ARCX with the organization creates the distance. The ARCX was not with the philosophy or the tech, for the most part, except where it was perverted into a tool or weapon against the person. And that has been done.

    I think there are a lot of us who “could reconsider” their affiliation or acceptance of the Label once the subject is cleaned up and if they re-engaged. But the label right now is not something we can relate to. As Independent Scientology becomes more real and widespread, and the organizations abuses are acknowledged and made amends from within, I suspect there will be more bathers willing to put their toes back into the water, if they have the need.

    Certainly those of us who fall into this “non-scientologist” category are not as deeply rooted or committed. Many of us have searched for and found answers elsewhere. That search has further distanced us from the Scientology label. And that is all fine. Lifes answers and tools of assistance are not found in Scientology alone. So for many the label will never again be one they use.

    But I am certainly a supporter of those here who embody and promote the best of what Scientology has to offer. I hope they expand their practice and help others. They are part of an effort to save a remarkably workable and beneficial system from the mess that mankind tends to make of such things. With them the ARCx ends and the affinity begins.

  59. I’m glad to hear there’s a major project under way to address the copyright issue. I wish you luck with that endeavor because I’ve long felt that its the copyrights in and of themselves that enable and empower all of the abuses in the CofS.

    IMO, RTC uses their copyrights as an intellectual weapon of torture and I have always hoped to see a class action lawsuit that solely seeks a remedy of having the copyrights relinquished into the public domain so that they can no longer be used for coercion and extortion. And if the cult doesn’t want to give up the copyrights, then they should give up their tax exempt status.

    That blatant misuse of the copyrights as a means of harming parishioners should make the legal protections of a copyright null and void. The CofS has abused that legal protection and they deserve to loose all those rights as a form restitution to all the people who suffered abuses in fear of loosing their eternity.

  60. I love my country. So proud to be Dutch Iam.

  61. Back around 1991 when I was on my auditor training, Ray from New Orleans who I believe was trying to route back into the SO and was on the SHSBC audited me on M-1 Word Clearing.
    I was on training full time and was so excited to be able to get this because previously I was in the non-interference zone, back and forth, back and forth…whatever! I NEEDED this for my training!
    I MILKED it! Poor Ray – tho he sure seemed to be enjoying it (great TRs). I think I must’ve done over 100 hours on M-1 and absolutely positively LOVED every minute of it. Whatever didn’t read reactively, read on my interest! LoL
    Tatiana, your comment about how it’s now memorization versus conceptual understanding rehabbed that most excellent ability I got from M-1!
    I later did KTL/LOC which too was a mind-boggling process.
    Is the CofM even delivering these anymore?
    If you’re trying to keep people in the dark, you’d surely have to get rid of those processes!

  62. Aeolus~You are sooooo right!
    I am just so grateful for having been audited by old timers pre-GAT! We hired field auditors at our mission and actually got staff in session! Of course until our new California mission holder and ED came in. That went down the drain but fast and they managed to blow off all the trained auditors we’d been making… There’s an objective for ya, huh?!

  63. Mike Hobson

    Jim, the claim about the Factors in the following statement is inaccurate:

    “Another is the use of ‘anchor point’. This term originates in the PDC lectures, which are PRIOR to the Factors being written.”

    At the beginning of The Factors (found in Scientology 0-8, Ron Hubbard wrote:

    “Summation of the considerations and examinations of the human spirit and the material universe completed between A.D. 1923 and 1953.”

    So, the PDC Lectures predate the *publication* of The Factors, but they had been a work-in-progress for three (3) decades.

    Michael A. Hobson

  64. Here is a little Gem (needs more comments maybe)

    November 9, 1998 4:00 PM PST

    “Scientology loses copyright round

    A Colorado nonprofit group has won a critical round in a legal fight against the Church of Scientology, raising questions about whether Scientology has a legal right to keep hundreds of documents offline and out of the public eye.
    The church, through its nonprofit subsidiary Bridge Publications, is suing Boulder-based FACTNet on charges that the group pirated more than 1,900 copyrighted church documents and distributing them on CD-ROMs.

    But FACTNet and its cofounder, former Scientology member Lawrence Wollersheim, contend that Bridge does not have legal copyrights to all–and possibly to any–of the documents in question.

    In a ruling last Wednesday, federal judge John Kane denied Scientology’s request for summary judgment, saying that FACTNet successfully had cast doubt on the legal status of the documents. Kane’s decision sends the case to a full trial, which will be supervised by a court “special master” appointed to untangle the thorny copyright issues involved.

    “It’s a huge victory,” said attorney Daniel Leipold, one of several lawyers representing Wollersheim and FACTNet. “It means they will have to prove up each of these copyrights. We definitely feel confident they can’t do that.”

    More at:—>

    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-217696.html

  65. My suggestion to all those delivering auditing, you can list yourself here:

    http://www.freezoneauditors.org/

    If you’d like to start auditing again in the future, you can get checked out and listed here:

    http://internationalfreezone.net/auditor-directory.shtml

    Those are the places that I went to, when I was looking for a non-CoS standard field auditor a few months back, after leaving the CoS.

  66. Alsoo if a text was altered before given into Copyright the Original text might be free of Copyright.

  67. Byron touched on a very good point..

    The rigid exclusion by the C of S of hordes of people, whether its exclusion by refusing to acknowledge valid case states, exclusion by way of disconnection, exclusion by reason of the services being too costly for the average person, a host of other exclusions or simply exclusion because the C of S no longer practices Scientology but something else entirely and most right minded people won’t put up with that means the C of S is the one creating the need for an alternative, creating the fact that many people who consider themselves Scientologists have no place to go but to another form of Scientology, a pure form, and one that doesn’t have these exclusions but practices inclusiveness.

    Quite apart from the law, I think the facts mean it would be hard for any judge to condemn a whole class of people and “evict” them from their self-built spiritual home.

  68. Just me The Church has ofte lied about copyrights and trademarks to be valid when they in fact are not and got away with it by either tratening to sue or burry someone into courtcases so one gave up out lack of money or danger to loose sanity.

    Everything needs to be tested and the Internet is the perfect laboratry for it.

  69. Very nicely said Jim, easy to picture that to happen with Shelly. Quite a girl!

  70. one of those who see

    Dear Jim,
    Just read what you wrote to Shelly. Have tears in my eyes. Beautiful.
    A little gift. Songs from the Wood lyrics – Jethro Tull
    “Let me bring you songs from the wood:
    to make you feel much better than you could know.
    Dust you down from tip to toe.
    Show you how the garden grows.
    Hold you steady as you go.
    Join the chorus if you can:
    it’ll make of you an honest man.

    Let me bring you love from the field:
    poppies red and roses filled with summer rain.
    To heal the wound and still the pain
    that threatens again and again
    as you drag down every lover’s lane.
    Life’s long celebration’s here.
    I’ll toast you all in penny cheer.

    Let me bring you all things refined:
    galliards and lute songs served in chilling ale.
    Greetings well met fellow, hail!
    I am the wind to fill your sail.
    I am the cross to take your nail:
    A singer of these ageless times.
    With kitchen prose and gutter rhymes.

    Songs from the wood make you feel much better.

  71. The link doesnt ork for me. It’s a dead page.
    Whats it called? Is it on Youtube?

  72. Theo, I love your posts but the penultimate sentence above is the sort of absolutism (Logic #6?) that DM and his PRbots love to propagate ad nauseam :ƿ

  73. Hey, Mr Know-It-All-Jim-Logan,

    F you and the horse you rode in on. If you keep coming up with answers, I’m just going to have to stop thinking. Then I’ll prostrate myself at your feet, mumbling your name, and cringing every time you speak. Asshole.

    Oh, just so you don’t misinterpret, in crowds I’ve traveled with, being called a “fucking moron” was a term of endearment. Periodically, someone will frown and ask me why I’m so “mean” to them. My answer: “Because I like you. If I didn’t think you could take it, I wouldn’t kid you. It’s a perverse sort of respect. If I didn’t respect you, I’d be very, very polite.”

    So, Jim, you horse’s ass, I really do appreciate your feedback.

    As a matter of, I’ve changed my mind on some things, having read your responses. Not that I have trouble changing my mind. One area was KSW. When I first left Scientology “for good” I was no longer constrained by the rules of engagement. KSW became irrelevant. And I charged ahead, breaking all the rules.

    But where I was successful, I could mostly trace those successes back to knowing the subject well enough to make accurate judgements. And when the internet blossomed and I was able to read the upper level materials and the transcripts of tapes from the fifties again, I would notice, “Ah, there it is; that’s why it worked.”

    I am going back to the material, starting from the beginning. I don’t have a lot of time to study, and these blogs keep suckering me in, but… hey, I’m learning a lot.

    And trying to stand back and measure my understanding against reality and life while overcoming preconceived notions and “oh, I know that’s!” can be an involved process. Like actually understanding emotions, their physics and rules, and their relation to theta, thetans and bodies, etc versus “Oh, yeah, I know all about emotions: sometimes my dad gets mad and my mom gets sad. Sure I understand emotions.”

    I remember having a casual conversation with Ray Mithoff and he said something very intriguing. If I recall correctly, he said Ron had asked him if he thought he could rediscover Scientology if he ended up on another planet somewhere. Just start from scratch and discover the whole thing. It wasn’t a taunt or a put-down or castigation, but more a challenge. The challenge was to know the subject so well, to understand the subject described by the words so thoroughly that if you were suddenly thrust into another world, you could rediscover all of the truths and begin once again to free the beings you found there.

    Since Ray is where he is, I would guess that he couldn’t. Or didn’t. Not yet. Maybe when he…

    When I say that I am not a Scientologist, I don’t mean to disrespect those who choose to wear this mantle. I merely feel obligated to maintain an exterior viewpoint rather than become internalized in the subject.

    And I feel obligated to maintain a position of sufficient independent causation that were I to find myself on another world, I would have the understanding to re-cultivate the subject sufficiently to free the beings there.

    So, sometimes, that is what I am doing. Studying the subject independently, then checking my answers against the crib sheet.

    And I don’t mean to disparage Ron’s work by calling it a “crib sheet.” However, even with all the lectures, bulletins, policies, books, etc. most of what you find is a sort of summation. It’s like reading the history of the world in a thousand pages. That’s a lot of pages but a comprehensive history of the world would require thousands upon thousands of texts–and then you would have to leave stuff out. In a thousand page text you might only get brief mentions of major civilizations outside the provence of the authors. And much of the text would depend on the experience and bias of the author or authors.

    As admirable as the work of LRH is, I believe that the story will eventually require many authors. Many pairs of boots.

    And some of those boots must be worn by those entrusted with Keeping Scientology Working, despite the human tendency to misunderstand, misapply, complain and then solve the problem by alter-ising ad infinitum.

    And I don’t take this position out of vanity or some inflated sense of self. God knows I’m a bumbling idiot compared to the task. But I’m learning. I’m sorting things out. I’m getting help. You help. Others here help. Others elsewhere help.

    And I understand and agree with all the points you wrote above. If I tried to respond to each one, I’d be writing for a couple of hours.

    And I don’t feel patronized. Believe me, Jim, I’m not that kind of girl.

    Much love,

    Michael

    ps. I’m a slow reader so usually can’t cover most of the blog and comments. Just by “accident” I spotted this.

  74. MostlyLurker

    Beautiful letter Shelly, thanks. I’m 100% with you (and with Jeff Hawkings, my star).

    David Mayo in 1996 made statements similar to yours, re copyrights:
    “I do not believe that the trade marks or service marks of Scientology(tm) would stand thorough judicial inspection and I think that there is an obvious incompatibility with the concept of religion and commercialism.
    Scientology(tm)’s copyrights or at least some of them have been questioned and should be questioned.” ( http://www.holysmoke.org/dm/dmayo000.htm )
    Shortly after the Co$ paid him big bucks to settle and silence him. I am happy the fight to free Scientology has been taken up by others.

  75. That’s a very telling graph.

    scientology.org is in a serious 6 month decline – kiss of death for a web site actually. Whereas Marty’s blog is coming along nicely – a better example of Normal you couldn’t hope to find.. That spike around about the 9th is interesting – it’s probably the three stories on Tom’s pc folders.

    And what is that spike for CoS around April 1st? I was big but only lasted one day. Did I miss an April Fool joke?

  76. “Shortly after the Co$ paid him big bucks to settle and silence him.”

    Where did this information come from. Was it cultivated or do you have direct knowledge of it ?

  77. Dear Shelly,

    Thank you for your heart-wrenching story about what you experienced concerning the State of Clear. I attested to Clear three different times, so I have a concept of what you went through. I will tell that story later, as I have an appointment and have to go. But I wanted to acknowledge you and tell you that I can certainly understand how you feel. Also, thank you for bringing up the copyright concerns as the comments here in response are very enlightening, and are an education in the area of copyright and religion, all on its own.

    I have several reasons why at this time I cannot declare myself an “Independent Scientologist”, but last night I was thinking about it and asked myself, To what group do I really belong? Some time back, many months ago some of us were batting around what we would call ourselves if we became a unified group. I came up with Association of Independent Scientologists, International, pronounced “I see” as in I see the light! At that time Jim Logan pointed out that we should stay on-policy and revive the original Hubbard Association of Scientologists International. Sometime back in the seventies, I bought a life-time membership for $75.00 to the HASI. So last night, I realized that what I am is a HASI SCIENTOLOGIST, someone who believes in the strict application of LRH’s “original tech” before any alterations. Since I bought that card, not even a Church of Scientology person should have an objection to that. In the same manner, politically I am a strict Constitutionalist. I spent a couple of years in a dictionary word-clearing every single word on the first study tape, and well into other study lectures, and I believe strongly in finding original texts and adhering by them in any field of endeavor, and am fascinated with “lost technologies” that LRH described in these lectures. I am hoping that Scientology, the way LRH wrote it and spoke it, does not become a “lost technology.”

    I keep learning so much on this website and having personal realizations and case gain and for this I thank all of you and for your submissions.

    ML,
    Lady Minn

  78. Concerned Citizen

    Wow, that the laws of your land would allow this very vital action is maravelous.

    http://www.stss.nl/en/legal/

    this is indeed very important for us all. Here you can find materials that you need in your pursuit of Scientology.

    The world is a brighter place by the day.

  79. Shelly (the posting one)

    Thank you Marty and everyone! I am itching to thoroughly read and answer everything this evening after work! Be back soon!

    Shelly

  80. Jack Airey

    Hi Shelly;

    Thanks for standing tall and telling your story. Also thanks for your service in the SO. One can’t thank regular SO members enough. They are the glue that is keeping this fragile church from crumbling to dust.

    Also thank you for being an FOI (Friend of Independents) and helping get the word out to the world.

    Yes, I agree you have a beautiful smile and a very attractive dog.

    LOL

  81. I get it, Lunamoth, but I don’t think the term “squirrel” is going to do much to help new folks understand or seek info…. just sayin’

  82. I never could understand why LRH insisted on copyrights. At first I thought it was to protect the tech, and then I realized that I was being reasonable, and that it was because Scientology was a business, not a religion. A very sad cognition.

  83. Virgil Samms

    Well, we have an ambivilant defintion floating around that needs to be tended to, which will sort out a lot of “I’m not a Scientolgist” “I am a Scientologist. It’s confusing.

    I don’t have an admin dictionary so I am going to paraphrase here and Jim will supply the correct definition.

    So if someone comes in to an org and does a course in Div 6, is he a Scientologist? Maybe, it’s hard to tell.

    If someone is a Class VIII C/S is he/she a Scientologist? Maybe. Not neccessarily.

    LRH said that a Scientologist is someone who uses the tech of Dianetics and Scientology to better his life and the lives of others around him. (This is the paraphrase).

    So if someone uses Scientology to better conditions in his life and others lives, is he a Scientologist? Yes. If a Class VIII C/S doesn’t audit or C/S anymore or use the tech to better himself or others, is he a Scientologist? No. Not per definition.

    I had a talk with a Christian a few years ago and told him the same thing because I found him stealing money. I told him he was not being Christian because he just went against the tenets of his religion. I didn’t say he wasn’t a Christian because he did go to church weekly and so forth, I just pointed out he wasn’t being Christian for stealing money. It really set him straight.

    If you do use the tech or some of the tech, then you are a Scientologist. If you use 2% of the tech then you are a Scientologist, per the defintion. If you steal money, that isn’t very Scientological.
    But does it mean you aren’t a Scientologist?

    So in summary – if one is trying to make the planet a better place by only making excellent cakes he is probably a pastry chef. Nothing more, nothing less.

    ML Tom

  84. Concerned Citizen if no one in the world will publish your work/book Come to the Netherlands.

    GALILEO Galilei (1564-1642) GALILEO published several earlier works with the ELZEVIRs and his Discorsi e Dimonstrazioni Matematiche – his last work – was published by them in 1638 after his works were banned by the Inquisition from appearing in Italy.

    http://home.planet.nl/~taylorpj/elzevir3.htm

  85. Virgil,

    This makes sense, distilled to the simple reality.

    It was by this definition that I initially defined myself as a Scientologist. The problem I run into now, and the reason I stopped, is because when the word is used as a label, it also requires a disambiguation between the reality of what that means and the negative, criminal violations that the world has come to associate with the word, heaped on the word by Miscavology and other abuse.

    I guess the problem is not unique to Scientology. It exists with other religions, it even exists with the word “Love.” When I use the word “love” it means wishing Life and all goodness, it grants life, it a word of powerful good action/wishing. However, the word is often misused, i.e., used to describe something else (misunderstood as emotion, sensation, desire, assignment of cause, whatever).

    If I am talking to someone one on one, and within my circle of close acquaintances, I can make the distinction. I can say I apply the tech to improve life, and to that end the label “Scientologist” would apply.

    I’m a little conflicted about using the label “scientologist” publicly because 1) it gives most people a gross misunderstood of who and what I am and 2) it publicly would lend my positive life to the “endorsement” of the entity in power abusing the Scientology “trademark” for enslavement & corruption, the polar opposite of true Scientology purpose.

    I’ve reconciled it for now by telling people who know me that I use Scientology to better life. But (and have been embarrassed and felt conflicted about it) I cannot call myself a Scientologist because the implications embrace the crimes and abuse of the “church” that I not only don’t endorse, but condemn.

    I could say “who cares” about opinion –but my choice is not because I’m afraid of not being liked or admired, my choice to not define myself by the word is because it’s a huge misunderstood.

    Then again, most “labels” in religion do not convey what a person actually practices in life.

    Your comm to the Christian was excellent, and the world needs more of those distinctions. Christians violate the ten commandments as matter of daily, accepted governmental policy: Thou shalt not kill.

    Maybe “practicing Christian” would help a a distinguishing “label.” I don’t know what the solution is.

  86. Hello Shelly. I enjoyed your post and thoughts, thank you. Important food for thought.

  87. Relevant to this discussion: I was told by WISE and Scientology staff that it was silly of me to have recommended two OT8s as “trustworthy” — and to “face it,” a new public I brought in had been “screwed” (as in felony fraud). I wept that day at a funeral for Trust — because I did, earnestly and totally, have faith that someone who made it to t hat level would not be deceptive with an intent to obtain something unfairly from another person. I (wrongly) assumed that because I had been through the confessional sec check squeaky squeaky clean road up the bridge (and I loved that state of freedom) that surely these two had. Yet they embezzled a new public for 100s thou$sands with intentional, knowing fraud. Needless to say, the “word” Scientologist never meant the same to me again.

  88. Thanks Shelly. You reminded me of some thoughts I had regarding the reissue of all the books under The Basics release.

    The original copyrights on fundamental books such as DMSMH will eventually end up expiring and move into the public domain.

    However, if one re-released the books and renewed the copyright under some entity like The L. Ron Hubbard Library, perhaps you could re-set the clock and try to continue monopolizing the tech even longer.

    Of course, to be effective, a campaign to discredit the “older works” would have to accompany the release. My FSM told me she was going to burn her old books.

  89. Tara: FYI. KTL and LOC fell from grace. It is still being delivered but a nowhere near the level as it was on first release in 1989.

    Here is what I think the problem was. On LOC you actually work out your hat in life. It is quite a process of self-discover leading up to this final action. Too many people were discovering their hat in life did not include being a staff member or being a full-time Scientology public and routed off and out to wear their hat in life! Really, if you want to be a musician, a mother, an astronomer, what are you doing in the Sea Org or in Scienotlogy?

  90. Suzanne, read your declaration.Very well written. Honest and truthful. You and your husband have a lot of integrity. That is what it takes to stand up. Well done! Very nice picture of the two of you.

  91. Shelly, well done on speaking the truth.

  92. Well Mike, from one peckerhead to another, when/if we end up on different habitable planets, and we’ve rewritten it from scatch, we’ll compare those and see who is the smarty pants around here.

    It is the mention you make of what LRH said to Ray M that inspired, lit a fire, kicked my pink ass to do what I’m doing: studying this stuff word after word, concept to concept, with all the background and lead up. I’m doing what Ray should be, and you are lining up to do. I welcome the company, especially an arsehole such as yourself.

    Nice to see me out there too. Do you have hair on your head? That would be a comfort, knowing I’m out there with hair.

  93. Ian Anderson is a much better bard than I. What a wonderful lyric. Thank you.

  94. Tom,
    I think you know how to know just fine here. And, I AM a Scientologist 🙂

  95. Hi, Splog,

    That traffic spike on Marty’s blog was due to the Anderson Cooper 360 series on “Violence in the Church of Scientology,” which aired March 30 – April 3.

    Just Me

  96. crashingupwards

    Hi Tom. Using the very broad and general definition of anyone who uses any scientology is a scientologist, I would be one. But that sets the bar very low, indeed. Thats where the church gets its millions of members.
    If I take on any specific mantle or identity from a religious or self-improvement basis, I want to be more invested than that, mentally and emotionally.
    Is anyone who meditates a Buddhist, or anyone who turns the other cheek a Christian? Maybee on some level.
    But it should be a personal decision of identifying or not. I personally would want to be purposfully applying the tenets of any practice and seeking to increase my applications of it in order to call myself by any label.
    Anyone who calls themselves a Scientologist I would expect to be enthusiastic about it. Not being counted as one by default due to some use of the tech.
    Purposful and enthusiastic application are two criteria I think matter.
    All that being said, it doesnt matter very much. Its not what someone calls themself that matters. Its their words and actions. The more any barriers and labels are removed the better. There may very well be a great in-between group going forward. And thats OK. If the planet is going to improve, that in-between group needs to be large indeed.
    There has been too much judgement and labeling already. Look where it helped get us.
    By the way, I very much enjoyed your story. Your a survivor who knows whats truly important and have stayed true to your moral code. Nice.

  97. Hey Shelly

    You asked:
    “….. how can anyone “trademark” or “copyright” a belief or a procedure that involves two people talking to one another? I mean, is that even possible?”

    Answer: You can’t. I think many people including some independants or members of the freezone think that what you asked is true.

    You can’t copyright an idea. You can’t trademark an idea. Anybody in the freezone or any indepandants can audit freely and they are not violating copyrights and tradmarks just because they audit.

    Where the legal wrangling comes into place would be if you actually copied the written or recorded words that were copyrighted or if you sold services calling them by a name that was trademarked by another such as “Scientology”.

    If you don’t do either you aren’t violating intellectual property right laws.

    As for CST it’s primary function is really to be the ultimate potential backup to start another organized scientology should the current organized scientology go down.

    It hold the copyrights. Although RTC holds the trademark/service mark rights, CST can take them back from RTC for just $100 any time it feels that RTC has placed the marks in danger.

    While CST itself does not manage orgs as does CSI and RTC it can take over should CSI and RTC go down and restart organized scientology by licensing another “RTC” or orgs directly.

    While more sophisticated legally, this backup plan was not new with the corporate evolutions of the early 80s. We were working on backup plans in the early to mid 70s with “Greater Churches of Scientology” getting ready to take over should the IRS seize the assets of the then organized scientology.

    The corporate structure of organized scientology provides many corporate veils to mask the real contraols of it and hide its assets from litigants or governments. There are back ups within backups built into that structure.

    While it is set up to withstand attacks from the outside, it would not be very difficult to take over from within if CST trustees/directors had the nerve or if even RTC trustees had the nerve to remove Miscavige.

    A posting I once did on this:

    http://forums.whyweprotest.net/291-scientology-discussion/removing-miscavige-corporate-power-how-guide-osa-64955/

    Anyway, just wanted to add my 2-cents that people are pretty much free to practice without violating intellectual property rights as long as they do as above.

    Like you I am not a scientologist. But I still wanted to clarify the above.

    Larry

  98. I remember this well. I think he’s trying to tell us something. LOL

  99. Badda boom!

    Just Me

  100. Shelly,

    I’ve commented above several times, but haven’t yet said — thank you so much for your post today. You seem to be one of those “tell it like it is” people, and that’s a style much appreciated by me.

    I also appreciated tremendously your take on the intellectual property issues of the Scientology marks, materials, and applications. That’s a big can of worms many here are going to enjoy opening up and spreading its contents all over the conference room table.

    BTW, I don’t know if everybody here knows this, but Shelly was one of the ex-Co$ people interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times last year. You can find her excellent video at http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/corrias.shtml.

    Just Me

  101. How sweet of you, Shelly! Such nice things to say! Thank you!

    Meisha

  102. martyrathbun09

    Veritas, Guess what? That OT VIII has been wiped out by over-regging and is beginning to see the light. What gets around comes around, huh?

  103. Smile.

    Brother.

    As a matter of fact, I still do have hair.

    I believe that everyone should study as if they were originating the subject. Why study to be effect? How friggin’ not-OT is that?

    I differentiate between what I observe and what LRH communicates. It’s that tricky concept of two sources: the source being what is observed or the truth observed and the source as an individual who discovers those truths and formulates a subject about those truths. One does not cancel out the other. Both should be recognized. In all fairness.

    And you can be the smarty pants. I prefer to run around naked–both physically and as a thetan. And on my planet, that will be the rule: all the women and I will run around naked, frolicking in the glen between sessions.

  104. crashing upwards,

    So true.

    Choice is senior. I get to choose who I am and what I am. No one else gets to define me. Period.

  105. Wiped out as in …? Finally went bankrupt for good? or left the “church”? Are they Independents? Both? Wow. … And btw, I never “owned” the lie that it’s “silly” to trust. 🙂

    If what goes around comes around you mean that truth is eventually victorious, and one way or another balance to Life is restored …that is the way (as in Tao). That’s Life:) And that’s why I love it. lol

  106. War and Peace

    Shelly ~~
    Thank you for a really great write up. Much appreciated.

    There is a perception of Scientology which is very non-religious, and when they fight in the Courts bandying around phrases like “Trade Secrets”~~~ it adds to the non religious perception.

    Trade ?
    “Trade” and “Religion” and not compatible.

    Shelly ~ a huge amount of FSO public also had their CLEAR declare cancelled and re-instated over and over.

    They even did that with public…

  107. The one beauty of people being sent by DM to “spy” on independents — inevitably they get the truth. And nothing — nothing — can stop the power of an idea (truth) whose time has come. Hallelujah. Hope they can get some standard tech once they see the whole scenario.

  108. Shelly, you make a great point. There must be a way to get support to people being held against their wills inside the C of $. …and a way to *end* the travesties of human rights abuse perpetrated by the “church” on people who simply want to practice Scientology.

    Thank you for your respect of that right, regardless of whether you share the practices or differ in opinion. That’s a great ability, to grant life and understand from many points of view.

  109. Crashing Upwards Once Upon a Time

    I get to choose who I am and what I am. No one else gets to define me. Period.

    ✩ ! ☼ ! ✩!

  110. The missing logic in what you say Virgil is that that definition is Ron’s definition. It’s easy for anyone to define any term in any way they want if it’s THEIR term. Back to circular thinking.

    I use Scientology all the time and don’t consider I’m a Scientologist. Don’t want the label and would never call myself one anymore.

    I take a bit of offense at it being pushed off on me that “You’re a Scientologist”. If I use some Buddhist teachings in my life to improve it, and a Buddhist finds out, they then don’t say to me “You’re a Buddhist” and boom, I’m a statistic again.

    Jus’ sayin’.

  111. Doc "Smith"

    Hey Tom, If he uses ARC when making a cake is he a scientologist?

  112. I think the perception of Scientology as non-religious is just the stark staring truth as far as the current regime is concerned. I probably don’t need to explain that. But I think that image they created will have to be repaired if the subject is to move significantly forward. I see more every day how that church is self-destructing.

    And that whole Clear thing. I know it was rampant, staff, public, SO – didn’t matter. I have no idea what that was all about, but I’m pretty sure there are at least a couple people on here who could shed some light.

  113. Marta – love it. 😀

  114. Tara – I think that day may be very close. I hope so.

  115. Been There~I was fortunate to be able to train full-time on KTL/LOC but watched the part- timers go through hell doing KTL part-time. It just shifts so much in your universe in such a major way, I could imagine what happened when they went home at night. I heard whisperings of crazy dramas.
    Brian and Wendy (?) were the I/Cs. They were both in their 60s I believe.
    My hat in life was Cl VIII but my then mission holder, OT8’s hat was apparently something else and she finally paid those Int-connected ones about $70K out of our reserves to take the mission. There began the downward dive!

  116. Doc – thank you. Those two words “be spiritual” are more powerful than they appear. IMO your friend is blessed both spiritually and intellectually. Which is probably why he is your friend – you share the virtues.

  117. I know you mean sans body!

  118. Connected – I agree with you so much. I think my strongest “belief” right now is that we have an inherent right to believe what we believe and act according to those beliefs. What is true for you is true for you. What is true for me is true for me. No one can impose restraints or restrictions (or trademarks or copyrights or licensing requirements) on what you believe, how you think, and what you say. Even if an extremist were causing harm, one cannot censure his “beliefs”, one can only exert control against his destructive and anti-social acts.

    I wish you all the best.

  119. Mike, it excites me that we can even have this conversation. 10 years ago I never would have dreamed it could happen.

  120. Theo,

    I applaud you for your determination. I may have met you in 1998. I was in Copenhagen for a couple of months on a mission to print translated books, then ended up in Spain for almost a year (also printing translated books, including Dianetics in 52 languages…).

    Being in Europe for a year helped open my eyes. There, we watched the news every day. We knew about the disasters and wars and poverty. You were there. You know what was going on in 1998-1999. I felt we were really doing something about it by getting those Dianetics books out in all the languages.

    But eventually I had to return to the Int Base and it was a complete nightmare. For me, it was the beginning of the end. I am eternally grateful that I had the good fortune to spend that year in Europe.

  121. I’ll second that! Thank you.

  122. LOL. Mine was supposed to go under SCI-NO-MO!

  123. I LOVE IT!!! I’ve been wondering where you were and all that. I have your email and will answer (I just got a bit overwhelmed with communications today and it might take me a couple days to catch up!)

    I am so glad you’re doing well. Oh man. Remember when that little starving kitty I took in to “save” ended up pregnant and having five kittens? And then before I could get her fixed she had five more? I’m only saying this, because every time I see a starving kitty I think of you and where we lived. And now you’re here and we’re back in touch.

    We’ll catch up!

  124. Mr Webb. Yes, look at us now. Although our definition of “good” has changed, we be damned good!

  125. Ignazio – I’m adding you to my list of “friends”. In more ways than one. Thank you.

  126. I’m glad you brought this up. The whole subject of Study Tech and KTL. I actually loved KTL. My twin was the other Shelly’s sister, CB. (She is a delight and I miss her.) Even so, the “powers that be” tried to mess with me on it. Pulled me off in the middle to do another action based on something that came up in someone else’s auditing. Whatever. I eventually got back to it and completed. Will never regret that I did.

  127. MostlyLurker

    I’m, sorry, I have no direct knowledge, but what is missing from the Internet are just the details.

    In 1993 Mayo was awarded 3.9 million dollars for years of litigation from Co$ ( http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/david-mayo-scientology-case.htm ). The purpose of Co$ was of course to harass and prevent him to independently practice Scientology. Co$ wanted a settlement at its own terms that would shut up Mayo for good and prevented him from spilling the beans. In 1994 we have Co$ acting as a terrorist organization, even utilizing Interpol to fair-game Mayo ( http://www.freezone.org/reports/e_mayo02.htm ) In the beginning of 1996 we have Mayo approaching to ARS, ready to “give information”. Shortly after we have a settlement. The settlement included a gag agreement. Based on other known gag agreements Co$ made or proposed to others (Armstrong, Aznaran, Wollersheim) it is likely that Mayo may have to pay a penalty for every instance of: practicing scientology, talking to Scientologists, talking about Scientology history and events he has direct knowledge of.

    Millions of $ collected to “fight the psychs” (and other buttons pushed by the IAS to extort money from Scientologists) have been paid to gag key people so that Scientologists would never hear the truth.

    Mike Rinder probably knows all about it as he is the one who fair-gamed Mayo. Even though Mike may be sorry for his use of violence, I’m afraid he can’t talk as the gag agreement may be binding him too, today.

  128. Max, you have been carrying the torch for that long and I had no idea. Just, wow.

  129. Aeolus, I know. It’s crazy and tragic. I know the whole Clear thing was not directed at me, but more a wholesale “handling”. I can’t fathom the reasoning behind it, but as I said in an earlier reply, I’m hoping one or two people here can shed some light.

  130. So sweet, I had no idea, but you made my night. Big Hug.

  131. Mary Jo – thank you, and thank you for all you are doing. I think we’ll be meeting up here in the near future!

  132. Suzanne & Craig: Congratulations! I read your declaration. You did the right thing. BTW, Sherry is a wonderful person, a dear friend and well-deserving of your support (and vice versa). Thank you for your courage.

  133. Crashing – I so hear you. I don’t know if I’ll ever put my toes back in the water, but I’ll fight for the right to, for me and anyone else who so desires.

    Do we know each other? You (or anyone) can email me directly at lovemydog@hushmail.com.

  134. ML – hah, you reminded me of something long buried. The very day I routed in to the Sea Org was the May 9th event in 1983. I happened to run into David Mayo after the event. Just him and me. He was very encouraging and not the least bit egotistical. I mean he was ALONE. No body guards, entourage, nothing. Very nice man, I thought. Alas, I had no chance to form an opinion beyond that. Within a year he was taken out and I was in RTC, blindly helping to promote what a *squirrel* he was. Based on no knowledge of my own. I’m sorry.

  135. Lady Minn, thank YOU. And we all have Marty to thank for providing a forum where we can talk. For real. That’s priceless and no one can take it away.

  136. LOL. Jack, we’ll talk tomorrow! and a big sloppy kiss from Shadow. 😀

  137. Thank you Veritas. I have also enjoyed your posts. There is a multitude of food for thought these days. Thank goodness!

  138. Hi Larry,

    I remember the first time I laid eyes on the document that explained CST’s relationship to RTC. It made me afraid. If CST determined it was necessary, they could actually take over the whole operation. As a member of RTC, that was scary! In retrospect, it makes sense, and oh how I wish they had exercised that option.

    Sadly, by the time I left in 2002 I believe DM had orchestrated matters so that no one could take him out. If not corporately, at least mentally. He had such control over all corporate officers and board members of RTC, CST, ASI, CSI and CST, I don’t believe anyone was capable of doing ANYTHING he didn’t condone. It was heart wrenching. One image I can never get out of my head is that of Norman Starkey. He was the Trustee of LRH’s Estate. Just comprehend the trust in that position. Yet DM reduced him to nothing but a figure head. Even made him wear badges stating something to that effect. Ridicule in the extreme. It turned my stomach and my heart.

    And from what I’ve read, things only got worse after I left.

    I appreciate your input and knowledge.

  139. Just want to comment Janine’s comment on LRH and copyright. Tell you what Janine. I think if LRH would be running the church today he would fully embrace licensing in the framework of open source and creative commons (http://www.creativecommons.org). But the fact is these licensing frameworks did not exist earlier and were not even conceivable. What is needed today is all the tech available licensed under the creative commons. Then we start cooking with grease for good.

  140. Joe Pendleton

    In the USA, a person cannot be prohibited from going into a room with another person and saying to him “recall a time when life was cheerful.” But the copyright/trademark ownership prevents that person from publicly promoting what he is doing as “Scientology” or with the name L. Ron Hubbard/LRH or duplicating/distributing/selling materials.

    Though it is debatable at this point as to the desirable use of those terms with the public (with PR so in the toilet), it still is probably better to have the religious freedom to do so, as the rehabilitation of the word “Scientology” will need to start at some point – it will NOT be a short cycle of action.

    If one went ahead and formed the “New Scientology Mission” or some such, no doubt the current church would take them to court on it, but can you imagine a FULL blown court case challenging the current church’s right to use these trademarks by having a hundred witnesses, including Mr. Miscavige himself, testify? And bringing everything to light publicly. Do you think the church would want that kind of case?

    Of course, ALL of this would depend on an attorney (s) who could withstand this all economically as the church is rolling in dough.

    KEY POINT: The “free excercise of religion” clause in the first ammendment to the Constitution.

    How expansive IS that clause? That’s the court’s hat to decide.

  141. Joe Pendleton

    Veritas (re: those OT8s), as we both know, there are tremdnous, TREMENDOUS gains to be gotten personally from Scientology – I’ve had them myself. But from my own personal inspection, I no longer believe these are in the “objective” realm. What I mean by that is that each person will have his/her OWN gains that will be real to him/her. Who really knows what these gains will mean to others? Is an OT8 an “OT8”? In DMSMH, the Clear was supposed to be very ethical. Do all Grade zero’s have the same ability to actually communicate with anyone on any subject? An ability that others can always notice? Or is it just the feeling of each individual Grade Zero comp as to that ability?

    As an auditor and CS, it is my responsibility to get book eps, and nothing above changes that. I’m just pointing out the bloody obvious (as John Cleese put it in one episode of Fawlty Towers).

    Is an OT III an OTIII an OT III? I’d have to be blind and deaf and full of dementia to believe that any more. Some OTs have fully loved every piece of what they have run and some ridicule these levels later (like the actor who made the 2 hour video on Scientology).I now know now that we are ALL individuals and have our own individual viewpoints on all these things. NO case level in Scientology is a gurantee of ANYTHING, other than what the individual who reached it feels it is.

  142. A Gag agreement does not count if one comes forward with knowledhge of criminal activities. One has to be sure however of a well established support base otherwise you are …….. if it goes wrong and establish a good understanding with the proper law agencies.

    Talking about America of course.

  143. M. Hobson,
    So true, the materials preceding the publication of the Factors are there and one can see they are summed by that publication.

    For example, the subject of life and its relation to energy production/handling by the thetan is described in 8-80 with a tentative formula expressed:
    “The formula of the energy of life source which has been tentatively advanced is:
    Life = (E*I / -R) * (-f)
    If:
    E = Energy Potential
    I = Energy Flow
    -R = Negative Resistance
    -f = Negative Frequency.

    “The theory of the counter-elasticity of flow is easily observed on an oscilloscope and
    is possibly the negative frequency…”

    The above is in Chapter 14. It got me thinking about the necessity for resistance in this whole shebang. Without resistance, something interposed to oppose a flow, there is no difference of potential and without that, no flow.

    The expression, ‘all angels have two faces’ took on a new meaning; the being holds two different potentials apart, and gets a flow. That flow is action, it’s what animates bodies, moves cars and is the motion of photons et al.

    It’s ‘attention units’ too:

    ““Attention units” are actually energy flows of small wave lengths and definite frequency. These are measurable on specially designed
    oscilloscopes and meters. No special particle is involved…”

    So you are right, he was working on the data that is summed in the Factors for quite some time.

  144. Shelly~Unbelievable wins to be had on KTL! Glad you made it through! I saw how hard it was for non-SO to get through. I can’t even imagine what determination it took to get through being in the SO! VWD!

  145. Shelly,

    I like what you communicated here. I personally am interested in seeing the tech preserved the way LRH intended. But as I hear more and more stories from others, it is clear that some prefer to walk away. Yet, many of them support what everyone on these blogs is doing, exposing DM.

    There is a common bond throughout which holds us all together. This is especially true of those who were in the SO. It really is so wonderful that we have been given this oportunity to really communicate about our lives and knowledge. I have learned so much that I didn’t know before and you have provided a lot of important and relevant information.

    Thank you for all who contribute to this ever expanding understanding of the church.

  146. Let’s just call it something else? That’s simple enough. EST did it and LANDMARK did it. Just to name a few…. The first person to write about and disseminate psychometry broadly was Claude Bristol in the late 1940’s, in his book “The Magic of Believing”.

    http://claudebristol.wwwhubs.com/

    http://www.beliefsecret.com/belief/

    “Psychometry” as a term was coined by Joseph R. Buchanan in 1842 (from the Greek words psyche, meaning “soul,” and metron, meaning “measure.”) Buchanan, an American professor of physiology, was one of the first people to experiment with psychometry. Using his students as subjects, he placed various drugs in glass vials, and then asked the students to identify the drugs merely by holding the vials. Their success rate was more than chance, and he published the results in his book, Journal of Man. To explain the phenomenon, Buchanan theorized that all objects have “souls” that retain a memory. If you hold the cans of your emeter with one hand and touch objects with the other hand you will obtain a read on every object. It is all living.

    Don’t want to offend anyone if I state simply Scientology is an exploration with psychometry.

    People want to know. When a person finds out that someone knows something he does not, he becomes interested to get that information.

    All of Scientology is just Hubbard sharing his knowledge with someone else.

    Everything else is ceremony.

    The OT levels can be addressed as influences.

    There is no reason this knowledge has to be stamped out because of red tape and a few men gone crazy.

  147. And whatever books or course packs you have bought from the Church, they are your possessions. You can read them or share them or use them for toilet paper if you want. They are your property if you have paid for them from the Church or Ebay or Barnes and Noble or anywhere you paid for them.

  148. That is a great idea!!

    How could we impliment it?

    Pat

  149. Mark A. Baker

    You are correct. David Mayo is a very nice man and, by the general acclaim of the old time scientologists who knew him, one of the finest c/s’s there has ever been.

    David worked very hard to ensure that people would be able to enjoy the benefits of auditing technology both inside AND outside the church. His effectiveness as a tech person and the high regard in which he was held as a leader frightened those within the church he sought to maintain absolute control on the tech and an effective monopoly on the delivery of services. Thus he was targeted for specialized abuse & harassment by those powers who sought ultimately to litigate him into silence. This strategy has been only partly effective. 🙂

    For further details, ask Marty. He was a useful instrument in Miscavige’s campaign against the ACC’s.

  150. Joe, I understand what you are saying. There are various levels that differ between individuals — of experience, track, responsibility level and other factors — that affect varying states of being and qualities of beings. Sometimes it’s juts choice… beings like different games and different sizes of realms, and in that degree there is no “better”, merely “different.”

    I’d like to add though that I think the individuals I was dealing with were under a lot of pressure and group out ethics, financially and otherwise. Ultimately, responsibility level and pan determinism toward all life and beings is what ensures powerful states of being. A lack of self-importance is the only way to fully grok the truth — realizing in the end, what we fear might make less of us, never does!

    In the sit to which I referred, I made assumptions about individuals who were getting services onlines, assuming they were respectful of life and pandetermined to be working on a certain level.

    I think part of the reason they were *not*, and they regarded others as possible financial “prey” is because they were under regging duress and also the sociopathic “moral code” of the current “Church” of Miscavology, which justifies crime and abuse by some idea it’s “saving mankind” (read: buying buildings).

    Ultimately, this environment is toxic to anyone truly unfurling their “wings” so to speak. Not to place blame at all here — just examining elements.

    Yes, OT levels and any case gain is totally subjective, but there are also observable objective increments of progress that I think are universal, and empirically measurable by an objective source.

    For example, I may have even questioned “WTF” I’m doing in a process…but darn if amazing things don’t happen — irrefutably amazing things — from major,tangible body changes release to — as an example — getting letters from a sworn “enemy” telling me a dream led to an insight and …_____(fill in: things I ran in session, miles away).

    Even I have ridiculed and intellectually questioned some aspect, but damn…!! I cannot argue with results! LOL!

    In the case of the two OTs I reference, IMHO they were “using” the level as “status.” Sadly, the Miscavologists have yet to learn that spiritual enlightenment has nothing to do with gold-leafing their crappers.

    So, whatever level of experience or track, with the right terminals who truly care about the person in front of them, results can be assumed — such as pan determinism (realizing all life is connected, and — even beyond the “socially agreed upon “moral codes” of “honesty” — it’s a foot bullet to skimp or cheat on any of it!) because we are each and all Life, I do expect that … auditing or no auditing, from any person on the road to truth.

    Marty…i just want to say Thank You again. The days are rolling out amazing things. Nothing like simply doing the adventure to truth!! NO additives!! THANK YOU!!

  151. Virgil Samms

    Veratis, Crashingupwards and Doc,

    We have announced ourselves as “Independant Scientologists.” Or have I been mistaken all these months? We just added the adjective in front of Scientologist!

    So the bottom line is that a rose by any other name is still a rose. I don’t think Sherry visits the Buddism blogs, or the Jew or Christian Blogs and posts. Do you Sherry?

    Prince, the musician also felt like he should get rid of lables and assumed his new identity which was a symbol and everyone forgot about him. He was known as “The person formerly known as Prince” So he couldn’t escape it because a Prince by any other name is still a Prince.

    ML Tom

  152. theta-be-bop

    A point of copyright law that I have thought worth exploring is that you can’t copyright facts. Truth is not copyrightable. Neither are recipes, formulas or processes.

    You can’t reproduce the books. But the processes are fair game.

    I wonder if this could be bridged in a court of law forcing the CoM to admit either that the works are truth and not copyrightable or they are fiction.

    Rock and a Hard Place.

  153. fairgame8008

    If you’re in need of working materials without copyright problems, google “Excalibur revisited” and “The Pilot Ken” (more will be found in following this up). The barriers by copyrights are just for commercial interests, status and in your mind.
    Which doesn’t mean that I would not heavy welcome it if you could hammer out of existence all COS copyrights also there.

  154. I’ll tell you what is coming up next. DM is all over this Baby. He is going to mock up “Independents” as a movement and give people a right to practice for 10% fee plus police control. That will mean the Sea Org can come in a raid your place and rip off anything they want and force you to sell books and use GAOT etc. He’s thinking about this now and discussing it how to bring this movement under control AND profit by it. He sees he is loosing people by the hundreds. See, the Sea Org has become one big Internal Revenue Service. The purpose is to TAX and COLLECT TAXES. The entire time DM was shouting, “Look over there! The I.R.S. is out to get us!” He was building his own Internal Revenue Service! The I.R.S. doesn’t even make tax laws, Congress does! WRONG TARGET! Geeze! Did anyone study U.S. Government before they hit the green vols???? But this is what the Sea Org is. The Internal Revenue Service for Scientology. And this is how you get out of this black magic. You look in the opposite direction of where you are being told to look. When everyone else is running towards town square, you run in the other direction. You go towards the woods. You don’t look at the man accusing, you look at the accuser. When you being told, “It’s over there!” You look over here! When you are being told, “Pain is the clue … ” You look for the pleasure that entraps you.

    So, think opposites. And most of you already are. Whatever is coming from the Church, look in the opposite direction, and you will see the truth.

    All of the hate and charge and fear coming from the Church and the people that were once our friends, is coming because we simply are not looking in the direction we are told to look in.

  155. I meant, you don’t look at the man accused, you look at the accuser.

  156. Was part of one of the original teams fired out for the release of KTL. LOVED IT! But delivery in a Cl V org was a mess. The hype of the ‘next big thing’ (much like what’s been done with the Basics) meant so many were ripped off other actions and then parked for months even years as they couldn’t get on a full time schedule. How do you twin on a special schedule? Talk about ships in the night! I think it crashed the orgs GI and delivery for more than three years! It was heartbreaking as I really feel this course IS the undercut LRH intended.

  157. Ms. Corrias,

    ( Sorry i read this a few days later. I hope you still get to read my comment)

    Thank you for your nice post. Glad you’re out!

    → You deserve the next KSW Award plaque!!
    Custom made to YOUR specifications. LOL 🙂

    The *oxymoron* with the copyrights of Dianetics & Scientology, is that their purpose was to prevent any Joe Doe or Jayne Doe to publish, ALTER or “RE-DEVELOP” the techs of Ethics, Tech & Admin, and then call it THEIR OWN.

    For example, printing & publishing “Self-Analysis” by Jane Doe.

    The Chairman of the Board of RTC – which is supposed to stump down tech alter-is – has been ALTERING Scientology and its materials at his own discretion but has never gotten a copyright lawsuit, has he?

    Thus, if you wish to reprint LRH integral materials, and make them available to the broad public at a low cost, or free, please do! They will come out great, as usual, that’s for sure.

    * I, for one, FULLY trust your graphic arts abilities.

    The major problem with Dn & Scn materials is that they’re way too expen$ive for the common folks to obtain.

    The Original Thesis was mimeographed on normal paper with school machines in the late 40’s , for Pete’s sake. (I can still smell that isopropyl alcohol ink.)
    It was passed around FOR FREE !
    DMSMH was published in book form AT THE P-U-B-L-I-C ‘s REQUEST.

    Lots of people could benefit from LRH’s “Allergy or Asthma Rundown” this season, just to name one.

    Theta Cheers to you! :- )

  158. Sold to the gov’t? Ron warned about this, thanks for the info. No wonder they are selling a watered down version of the bridge. DM sold out. HUBBARD QUOTE: “… the United States
    government and the efforts of that government since
    1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology
    rather than forbid or stop it … .”
    LRH (from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 Issue III
    “Politics, Freedom from”)

  159. Hi,

    I would like to propose the link exchange deal with your website markrathbun.blog, for mutual benefit in getting more traffic and improve search engine’s ranking – absolutely no money involve.

    We will link to you from our blog – https://www.souledamerican.com/, from its homepage’s sidebar. In return you will agree to do the same to link back to one of our of our site, from your markrathbun.blog’s homepage too (sidebar, footer, or anywhere on your homepage), with our brand name.

    If you are interested, kindly reply to this email.

    Thank you,
    Pauline

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s