Going Clear, Part 21 transcript:
Mark Rathbun: A key part of the anti-Scientology narrative as partially authored by Lawrence Wright, continuously published by Tony Ortega, endlessly repeated by Mike Rinder and other outlets on the troll farms, is: ‘Dang, we had Scientology – the FBI was right on them yet they got saved by this thorny Constitution interpreted by limp-wristed liberal justices of the Ninth Circuit.’ That literally is an invented narrative on several levels. The first level is this, if you read the opinion you don’t need the Constitution, you don’t even need a constitutional analysis. First of all, the Ninth Circuit’s statement of the constitutional protections afford to religion is absolutely accurate. That it was applied to Scientology is absolutely nothing new. It has been consistently applied by courts for decades. So, there is no news there. But, if you read the opinion, the court did not even need the Constitution. It found on a factual basis, if you literally broke down the facts, it didn’t even need the Constitution, because they found facts didn’t support the civil wrongs that were alleged. Now, we know that the FBI investigation was prompted by the Headleys and really that was the core of their case. The court said ‘factually’ they don’t have a case. Factually. Now, the problem is compounded. As early as April 2010 the only significant ‘defector’ from high up in Scientology who said anything after 2090 was John Brouseau. And I arranged for John Brouseau to speak with the FBI. And John Brouseau told the FBI, “I have seen no violence on behalf of David Miscavige or anybody else at the upper levels of Scientology. I have seen no evidence of anything they call the ‘hole’ for the several years that I have been there – since most of these people (who had already spoke to the FBI) left the church.” None of the stuff that was the advertised crux of the FBI investigation existed. The only percipient witness, the only person who was in a position to know and a position to see – who was speaking to the FBI on behalf of the complainants (the Headleys), said ‘there’s no there there.’ And that in effect was the end of the FBI investigation. The only conversations that I had with the FBI after that point (when Brouseau had testified) were about how to sting Scientology executives on a potential obstruction of justice rap. In other words, do that the FBI usually does to somebody in a white collar case. 88% or 90% of the time, when they are going after somebody in a white collar case, they get them covering up. I told them, ‘you can troll them.’ In FBI lingo, that is ‘sting them.’ Get them to do something stupid. And in fact the FBI engaged in it. And Scientology didn’t take the bait. And now even the sting was over by 2010. So, this whole narrative about how the Constitution saved Scientology from scrutiny by the FBI was entirely invented. Lawrence Wright said he was going to cover it in his (New Yorker) article because the FBI has a dismal record when it comes to dealing with “cults.” Wright said, “sometimes they need incentive.” So, clearly Wright was trying to give them a black eye to incentivize them to go after Scientology. It is quite the motivation of an unbiased journalist, right?
Moving On Up a Little Higher 
It was John Brousseau that tanked the FBI investigation? Interesting.
Virginia
Meaning – it was his testimony that resulted in their not being able to pursue the violence etc. issues raised.
Mark quoting Brousseau – CAPS mine – regarding any evidence of the hole etc.
“…for the several years that I’ve been there SINCE THESE PEOPLE LEFT.”
—
I’m guessing that if Brousseau actually said that to the FBI, that would have done it. The end. Kaput.
I, like Dan, was surprised to see comments opened up. I, for one, almost never read any but instead scrolled down to see what ones you might respond to. Or I’d read ones from people I knew (which were generally sensible) The rest, as far as I was concerned, were all a contest of who could be the most clever or humorous or whatever and never really added anything relevant to the point. And then there were the ones that posted dozens of long drivelling responses on the same post. Geez. The social media ‘look-at-me’ mindset. Anyway, I kind of doubt we’ll see your responses here as it is evident that this series is meant to answer, clarify, correct or put into a frame of reference all the things spit out in the various feeding frenzies across the various forums.
This one gave me pause however. I can only assume that the point of JB’s testimony leading to the closure of the FBI investigation (given the dates you’re referencing) was because Dave ceased those activities (violence/imprisonment) not long after the revelations. And I assume there was no merit or point to investigate accusations of past mis-behavoir if such had long since ceased and especially in the context of what happens within a religious sect.
The only thing I ever hoped for was that one day Dave would be exposed for what he was and what he was doing in a way that would be unavoidable for the current members not to know or notice. I learned the hard way that you can’t get a friend or family member stuck in the treadmill to look without starting up the whole disconnection machine and all the travail that goes along with that. They have to do it on their own accord, and for many, that day may never come.
Then there’s the LRH side of things which is a tough one. As you point out, most of the lectures are rock-solid and detailed accounts of the development of processes to help people, colorful and invented anecdotes aside. And we all know he dedicated his life to it. That he amassed a fortune, was afraid of pain (I have a personal anecdote to back that one up, regardless of what others have said) and died a degraded being is all rather difficult to reconcile.
Still, I haven’t thrown the baby out with the bathwater, no matter how it all came about because whether borrowed, stolen, alchemized or whatever, a lot of it is very useful and practical.
It will probably be 50 years or more before anyone can dispassionately unravel the whole story as it was, not as they think it should have been.
Respectfully Marty, I don’t know a whole lot about John, but probably the main story I remember is his describing putting the bars on the trailers. Was it that the hole didn’t qualify as human trafficking? It existed but wasn’t as described?
According to Marty, what John Brousseau specifically said was that he had
(quoting Marty from the video) “seen no evidence of anything resembling this thing they called the Hole, for several, for the several years that I’d [meaning Brousseau] been there since most of these people left.”
Tony Ortega actually quoted the above on his blog – and still claimed that Marty said Brousseau denied there was EVER a Hole. No, he said “for the several years that I’d been there since most of these people left.”
I’m taking that to mean there was a description of “The Hole” that they (I’m assuming the Headleys, or whoever else was involved in promoting the legal action) were giving to the FBI that was inaccurate? They were telling the FBI that people were imprisoned in The Hole and that it qualified as human trafficking? The way it was stated it’s easy to assume it means John said The Hole did not exist at that time, which doesn’t match historical statements by John and others. And Mark Headley in My Scientology Movie said if FBI or Police were to go in and ask people if they wanted out they would all say no.
Chris: “I’m taking that to mean there was a description of ‘The Hole’ that they (I’m assuming the Headleys, or whoever else was involved in promoting the legal action) were giving to the FBI that was inaccurate?”
No, it wasn’t that it was inaccurate, just that the most recent defector who had been high up in Scientology, John Brousseau, said he had seen “no evidence” of it “FOR THE SEVERAL YEARS THAT I’D BEEN THERE SINCE MOST OF THESE PEOPLE LEFT.”
In other words, the hole was something that had gone on in past years but was no longer the case – which, per Marty, was why the FBI dropped their investigation. It wasn’t for the reason that “the Constitution saved them,” as is claimed by anti-Scn’ists.
I should say “…APPARENTLY was no longer the case”
Scientology Elder Abuse Part 1