Category Archives: harassment

Rundown on Scientology Intelligence

The following is a firm corporate policy of all Scientology entities. It is applied invariably to those who criticize Scientology, its organization, or even its executives and staff who engage in unconscionable and even criminal behavior. It has been applied in this wise since the day it was issued in the year 1968 all the way to the present.  Note the requirement for regular, detailed reports.  A plethora of Scientology policy mandates that those reports are filed – and as noted in this one, cross-indexed – and retained for posterity (including for potential use in blackmail, see Scientology Literacy and Blackmail.)  There is no document destruction policy in Scientology, except unwritten (but firmly enforced) policy to destroy potential evidence when courts or law enforcement agencies indicate they might be interested in such evidence.

OSA Network Order                                                    16 October 1988

Execs

Invest Staff

Confidential

RUNDOWN ON INTELLIGENCE

(Originally written by LRH on 20 September 1968.)

I’m writing to you in the hope that by combined effort, we can bring some understanding into Intelligence.

First I’ll give you a quick rundown on how Intelligence works.

We have two main cycles as far as investigations go. The first is:

1. Some SP near an outer org starts attacking Scientology.

2. The Investigations Officer in that area cables or telexes his senior at International level and starts investigating the person behind the attack.

3. The Int level senior acks the report and expects to see regular reports on the SP being investigated.

4. A file is opened in both the outer org and Int level and the case goes on the CIC board as a project.

5. The investigation is carried on until the crimes are found and it is handed over to Prosecutions to get the SP put in a government accommodation.

Or:

5. The SP* gets scared and shuts up and the Int level senior directs the case to be dropped.

The second type of cycle is as follows:

1. The Int level senior, on going through the files, sees a possible source of future attack and directs an investigation to start on that person or group.

2. A file is opened and it goes on the CIC board.

3. Investigations Officer in that area starts investigating and we get the goods.

4. The whole thing is turned over to PR for action and exposure, or to Legal for prosecution.

Among these we have smaller cycles of action such as, “Get me a copy of such and such a book,” or “Was this SP ever trained in your org?”

At the same time all this is going on, Intelligence should be going through newspapers, magazines, etc., and taking clippings on medical, psychiatry, mental health, government, world finance and banking, oddball self-help groups and filing and crossfiling these to locate SPs. And cross-filing declared SPs in the area by connections and frequency of names, to see who the ringleaders are in that area so that they can be prosecuted for crimes. But an investigation is NEVER NEVER begun until

1) an SP attacks Scientology (threatens to sue, goes to his representative about us, etc.) or

2) the Int level senior orders an investigation to be started.

While Investigations Officers may investigate well, the main trouble is that sometimes they investigate the wrong things, such as:

a. Investigating someone who is not attacking us and who no one has ever heard of before, with no orders to do so.

b. Investigating public who have not attacked and who are more a job for Public Ethics, Registrar and ARC Break Auditor.

c. Investigating some nut who, for example, wanted to buy a meter to listen to Martians so he could pick up radio signals. This one would be a Public Ethics matter in the first place, as I can’t see a reason in the world why we should throw every nut we meet into jail.

d. Taking a request for information from an Int level senior, such as a request for a copy of a book, as an order to do an investigation.

e. Doing investigations on kooks and non-entities who are not attacking us.

Now, we are going in on psychiatrists and that IS a correct investigation so we expect to see reports on that. Reports would also be expected from an Investigations Officer when officially assigned to work on an investigation.

Although the above is all covered in policy, please get this straight with Investigations Officers.**

L. RON HUBBARD

Founder

* SP, or suppressive person.  A label applied to anyone critical of Scientology, its leaders, or organizations.

** Investigations Officers.  A position on the organizational chart of every Scientology organization across the world; responsible for using such means as this policy spells out to obliterate criticism in his or her zone of operation.

Scientology Literacy and Blackmail

Scientologists take a great deal of arrogant pride for allegedly possessing the only effective technology for producing super literacy.  But is it super literacy or super literalness that it ultimately produces?  Try asking a dedicated Scientologist a simple question under oath where the honest answer might not make David Miscavige and Scientology out to be infallible, and you will understand the question I pose.  I have spoken to many journalists who have been driven around the bend dealing with Scientology’s form of super literalness.  Honestly review the  arumentation you have received, or even used yourself, from Scientology staff and field staff members, registrars, public and officials at mass events.  It is even omnipresent in the never-ending streams of publications spit out by Scientology organizations.

Here is an example of how this super literalness plays out in institutional behavior of Scientology organizations and how they interact with the world at large, from Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior:

“By way of example, until I just recently re-read the following Hubbard Guardian’s Office Order, I would have vehemently argued that Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard never countenanced blackmail.  Sure, they promote aggression, intimidation and fighting fire with fire, but just as surely not the commission of felonies as serious as blackmail. L. Ron Hubbard uttered the following on July 1, 1968, in a briefing to Mary Sue Hubbard about how her Guardian’s Office ought to be conducting itself:

We try to isolate who is creating the unrest and giving the orders. But even while we’re doing that, we try to collect “protective materials.” Archaeological and scientific and social studies might very well result in disclosing Mr. De Gaulle’s peculiar liaison with Hitler. That’s protective material.

All of a sudden somebody is jumping all over us in “Wango-bingo” and all it would take would be a quiet phone call. That’s one way to keep order. That is an intelligence method of handling things. It’s not blackmail, because blackmail is demanding money and that has nothing to do with it. “You jump on us, you’re dead”— that type of material…

…So, Mr. Big decides to knock us flat in Bongville. All of a sudden it cools by the simple reason that we already know that the head of the public health service at Bongville has three wives. What you normally do is leak it to him. Somebody goes out and has dinner with his daughter as a perfect stranger and says, “You know, I would be awfully careful of jumping on those Scientologists in Bongville if I were you. You know somebody ought to tell your daddy that there’s some wild rumor—of course, we don’t know what the truth of it is—that actually you have three mothers. And they know that over there.”

In the context of protecting the power of Simon Bolivar (read: L. Ron Hubbard) I understood this just as Hubbard said: “It’s not blackmail, because blackmail is demanding money and that has nothing to do with it.””

 

War on “Scientologists at War”

David Miscavige and his Scientology Inc picked yet another losing war against freedom of the press and of speech.  This one was an official complaint and proceeding launched against UK Channel Four and Roast Beef Productions for their documentary Scientologists at War.  Of course, only the finest and most expensive lawyers that could be bought in London took up the Scientology cudgel.  The results were published in the official publication of England’s official agency (Ofcom) tasked with upholding standards of fairness in media.   The Scientology case can be found at page 43 of OfComm’s latest journal.  It is an informative read.

The Scientology Inquisition

David Miscavige and his Scientology Inc. have of late  taken to waving the flags of the American Nazi Party and the  Westboro Baptist Church.   They are spending huge sums in order to convince some that their own activity belongs in the same category as those august institutions.  They don’t even try to argue that their conduct is not outrageous or unconscionable in a civilized society. Instead, they claim it is their Constitutional right to practice retribution, terrorism and ruination upon those who refuse to relinquish their own First Amendment rights to speak and worship as they choose.

Regardless of their individual failures or successes in this expensive positioning endeavor, there is legal precedent that protects you should you ever be targeted by the Scientology Inquisition.  It is the decision of the California Court of Appeals in the original Wollersheim vs. Church of Scientology of California case.

The following is a reprint of the particular section of that decision that deals with Scientology heretics and their treatment at the hands of the Scientology Inquisition:

B. Even Assuming the Retributive Conduct Sometimes Called “Fair Game” Is a Core Practice of Scientology It Does Not Qualify for Constitutional Protection

As we have seen, not every religious expression is worthy of constitutional protection. To illustrate, centuries ago the inquisition was one of the core religious practices of the Christian religion in Europe. This religious practice involved torture and execution of heretics and miscreants. (See generally Peters, Inquisition (1988); Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages (1961).) Yet should any church seek to resurrect the inquisition in this country under a claim of free religious expression, can anyone doubt the constitutional authority of an American government to halt the torture and executions? And can anyone seriously question the right of the victims of our hypothetical modern day inquisition to sue their tormentors for any injuries – physical or psychological – they sustained?

We do not mean to suggest Scientology’s retributive program as described in the evidence of this case represented a full-scale modern day “inquisition.” Nevertheless, there are some parallels in purpose and effect. “Fair game” like the “inquisition” targeted “heretics” who threatened the dogma and institutional integrity of the mother church. Once “proven” to be a “heretic,” an individual was to be neutralized. In medieval times neutralization often meant incarceration, torture, and death. (Peters, Inquisition, supra, pp. 57, 65-67, 87, 92-94, 98, 117-118, 133-134; Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, supra, pp. 181, 193-202, 232-236, 250-264, 828-829.) As described in the evidence at this trial the “fair game” policy neutralized the “heretic” by stripping this person of his or her economic, political and psychological power. (See, e.g., *889 Allard v. Church of Scientology (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 439, 444 [129 Cal.Rptr. 797] [former church member falsely accused by Church of grand theft as part of “fair game” policy, subjecting member to arrest and imprisonment].)

In the instant case, at least, the prime focus of the “fair game” campaign was against the “heretic” Wollersheim’s economic interests. Substantial evidence supports the inference Scientology set out to ruin Wollersheim’s photography enterprise. Scientologists who worked in the business were instructed to resign immediately. Scientologists who were customers were told to stop placing orders with the business. Most significantly, those who owed money for previous orders were instructed to renege on their payments. Although these payments actually were going to a factor not Wollersheim, the effect was to deprive Wollersheim of the line of credit he needed to continue in business.

Appellant argues these “fair game” practices are protected religious expression. They cite to a recent Ninth Circuit case upholding the constitutional right of the Jehovah’s Witness Church and its members to “shun” heretics from that religion even though the heretics suffer emotional injury as a result. ( Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, supra, 819 F.2d 875.) In this case a former Jehovah’s Witness sued the church and certain church leaders for injuries she claimed to have suffered when the church ordered all other church members to “shun” her. In the Jehovah Witness religion, “shunning” means church members are prohibited from having any contact whatsoever with the former member. They are not to greet them or conduct any business with them or socialize with them in any manner. Thus, there was a clear connection between the religious practice of “shunning” and Ms. Paul’s emotional injuries. Nonetheless, the trial court dismissed her case. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in an opinion which expressly held “shunning” is a constitutionally protected religious practice. “[T]he defendants, … possess an affirmative defense of privilege – a defense that permits them to engage in the practice of shunning pursuant to their religious beliefs without incurring tort liability.” ( Id. at p. 879.)

We first note another appellate court has taken the opposite view on the constitutionality of “shunning.” ( Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church (1975) 462 Pa. 330 [341 A.2d 105].) In this case the Pennsylvania Supreme Court confronted a situation similar to Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York. The plaintiff was a former member of the Mennonite Church. He was excommunicated for criticizing the church. Church leaders ordered that all members must “shun” the plaintiff. As a result, both his business and family collapsed. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the action, holding: “In our opinion, the complaint, … raises issues that the ‘shunning’ practice of appellee church and the conduct of the *890 individuals may be an excessive interference within areas of ‘paramount state concern,’ i.e., the maintenance of marriage and family relationship, alienation of affection, and the tortious interference with a business relationship, which the courts of this Commonwealth may have authority to regulate, even in light of the ‘Establishment’ and ‘Free Exercise’ clauses of the First Amendment.” ( Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church, supra, 341 A.2d at p. 107, italics in original.)

We observe the California Supreme Court has cited with apparent approval the viewpoint on “shunning” expressed in Bear v. Mennonite Church, supra, rather than the one adopted in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, supra. (See Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., supra, 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1114.) But even were Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York the law of this jurisdiction it would not support a constitutional shield for Scientology’s retribution program. In the instant case Scientology went far beyond the social “shunning” of its heretic, Wollersheim. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology leaders made the deliberate decision to ruin Wollersheim economically and possibly psychologically. Unlike the plaintiff in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, Wollersheim did not suffer his economic harm as an unintended byproduct of his former religionists’ practice of refusing to socialize with him any more. Instead he was bankrupted by a campaign his former religionists carefully designed with the specific intent it bankrupt him. Nor was this campaign limited to means which are arguably legal such as refusing to continue working at Wollersheim’s business or to purchase his services or products. Instead the campaign featured a concerted practice of refusing to honor legal obligations Scientologists owed Wollersheim for services and products they already had purchased.

If the Biblical commandment to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to render unto God what is God’s has any meaning in the modern day it is here. Nothing in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York or any other case we have been able to locate even implies a religion is entitled to constitutional protection for a campaign deliberately designed to financially ruin anyone – whether a member or nonmember of that religion. Nor have we found any cases suggesting the free exercise clause can justify a refusal to honor financial obligations the state considers binding and legally enforceable. One can only imagine the utter chaos that could overtake our economy if people who owed money to others were entitled to assert a freedom of religion defense to repayment of those debts. It is not unlikely the courts would soon be flooded with debtors who claimed their religion prohibited them from paying money they owed to others.

We are not certain a deliberate campaign to financially ruin a former member or the dishonoring of debts owed that member qualify as “religious *891 practices” of Scientology. But if they do, we have no problem concluding the state has a compelling secular interest in discouraging these practices. (See pp. 884-886, supra.) Accordingly, we hold the freedom of religion guaranties of the United States and California Constitutions do not immunize these practices from civil liability for any injuries they cause to “targets” such as Wollersheim.

For further parallels between Miscavige’s Scientology Inc. and the perpetrators of the original Grand Inquisition, see The Scientology Reformation

Miscavige’s Obsession with the Rathbuns

Many have speculated why the Miscavige obsession with our family is so intense and seemingly inexorable.  Miscavige has spent millions in a variety of forums attempting to explain or justify it.  The writings on that score in his publications, legal threats to media, and legal pleadings and utterances from his PR hacks and agents – including the deep ranks of expensive attorneys – are so far-ranging, self-contradictory and red herring in nature, that they are unhelpful in discerning the answer to the question: why such an obsession?  Yet, the answer is apparent, by the repeated expression of our objectives right here on this blog as well as in  a number of media interviews. Below are several excerpts and links to support the ideat that the motivation for Miscavige’s mania lies in his need to resurrect the effectiveness of Scientology’s domestic terror apparatus.

The record:

September 25 2009, Winds of Change:

To stand and communicate one’s convictions and defend the rights of other friends to do the same is the remedy for Miscavige’s brand of terrorism.  It can make one feel healthier and more whole. If enough people follow your lead, it will lead to the end of the Scientology reign of terror.

September 26 2009, Independent Scientologists Community:

People who have simply exercised their abilities to be there and comfortably confront when faced with Church intimidation tactics – and not allowed themselves to be drawn into flash fights and the resultant creation of ridges – have as-is’d the invaders. That has happened most frequently when the person being targeted by the Church has the comfort of knowing he has people who are behind him or her with unconditional love. It is quite remarkable.

I am fairly certain that if a decent percentage of independent Scientologists stand up, identify themselves, and freely associate with like-minded friends in the light of day at least three things will happen:

a. Many individual lives will regain meaning. Many more lives still will reap the gains from each of us who independently and freely use Scientology with no other motivation than to help others reach higher states of beingness.

b. Scientology (the subject and community) will experience a renaissance within society at large.

c. Miscavige’s church will be forced to either radically reform by reversing its suppressive operating basis or face its inevitable demise (note the intransitive is used; it is not because of anything that you or I will do to it that will cause it other than being their comfortably – it will be a self-inflicted fate).

February 1 2010, The Underground Railroad Goes Overland:

One primary purpose behind encouraging people to overtly declare their independence was to break the back of the mafia-like protection racket run by the C of M. That is, to help people get out from under the black cloud of intimidation and threatened execution of forced disconnection for purposes of breaking Scientologists’ wills and independent thought processes.  The idea has proven workable. Each person who overtly straightens his back demonstrates to many more how incapable the  C of M is to ride straight backs. For each who does so overtly, dozens more begin to straighten their own by witnessing it can be done without serious repercussion and seeing tall walking people blossoming.

January 21 2011, Confront of Evil:

The pathetic and empty nature of their threats serves as confirmation of my oft-repeated analysis: AS INDEPENDENTS BECOME MORE NUMEROUS AND COURAGEOUS, RADICAL SCIENTOLOGY’S RESOURCES TO HARASS WILL BECOME MORE DISSIPATED AND THEIR “ATTACKS” WILL BECOME LESS AND LESS EFFECTIVE. And so it has played itself out in that fashion.

August 18 2011, Why The Obsession?:

People who have been following this blog for some time understand that this is a message I have often repeated: when enough real Scientologists stand up and be heard as Independents, Miscavige’s resources will be spread so thin trying to intimidate them that his actions will be so ineffectual that the world will see there is nothing to fear from Radical Corporate Scientology. 

It apparently has come to pass that from Miscavige’s perspective too many people have stood up and been counted so that Scientology has lost its terror-control factor.  There are not enough resources to re-corral or make examples of all those who have stood and are continuing to do so, nor even a significant portion of them.  Apparently, in the mind of Miscavige the only way to discredit the notion that Scientology can no longer hunt you to the grave if you dissent is to very visibly and thoroughly destroy the guy who widely and repeatedly asserted that there was nothing to fear – and the current state of affairs to gain – by standing up.

Scientology Spies Invade New Braunfels Texas

With Scientology Inc.’s traveling phalanx of lawyers comes a mobile surveillance apparatus.  In the case of New Braunfels Texas a team of several operatives are deployed spreading from the courtroom where Rathbun v. Miscavige is being heard, throughout the courthouse, along the sidewalks to the coffee and sandwich shops team Monique frequents at breakfast and lunch.

Here are two of its operatives (including coordinator Cathy Norman, director of OSA operations for ‘church’ of Scientology of Texas in Austin) keeping close tabs on Monique Rathbun.

 

Scientology street agent

Scientology street agent

 

OSA chief Texas Cathy Norman joins street operative

OSA chief Texas Cathy Norman joins street operative

Miscavige keeping his promise 'you can run, but you cannot hide.'

Miscavige keeping his promise ‘you can run, but you cannot hide.’

The Scientology surveillance squad assigned the Comal County Texas courthouse is sponsored and protected by unindicted co-conspirator in the U.S. v. Hubbard criminal case, Kendrick Moxon.

Moxon

When Monique politely inquired of the name of one of the spying agents, Moxon aggressively attempted to silence Monique.  With Scientology it seems that the more things change the more they remain the same.

 

Monique Rathbun vs. David Miscavige by the numbers

There have been published reports that seventeen lawyers have appeared in the Comal County courtroom on the Scientology side of the aisle in the case of Monique Rathbun vs. David Miscavige, et al.  In fact, twenty-two lawyers have made official appearances and/or physical appearances in the case for Scientology Inc.

Many of those lawyers have made multiple flights to Comal County from New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., or driven from Dallas, Austin and San Antonio to attend hearings on behalf of Miscavige and his co-defendants.

For some perspective consider these facts:

  1. The Scientology lawyer roster was roughly half of that for the nine-year, $30,000,000+ Lisa McPherson litigation. That litigation involved upwards of a half dozen lawsuits.  David Miscavige on many occasions lamented that McPherson constituted the greatest public relations disaster in Scientology’s history (including that created by 11 top Scientology officials being jailed for conducting the largest domestic espionage campaign in history against the United States government). Principal lawyers in the McPherson matter are visibly directing the big name lawyers recruited by Scientology Inc. to front in Rathbun vs. Miscavige.
  2. The Rathbun v. Miscavige Scientology lawyer roster is about double that employed to deal with United States v Hubbard (the aforementioned government espionage case).  That litigation involved at least a dozen lawsuits. Principal lawyers in the U.S. v Hubbard matter are visibly directing the big name lawyers recruited by Scientology Inc. to front in Rathbun vs. Miscavige.
  3. Scientology and Miscavige employed roughly half the number of lawyers he has so far in Rathbun v Miscavige during the take down by over-litigation and intimidation against the largest and most feared agency of the United States government, the Internal Revenue Service. That matter included more than twenty-two hundred lawsuits. Principal lawyers in the Scientology Inc. v IRS matter are visibly directing the big name lawyers recruited by Scientology Inc. to front in Rathbun vs. Miscavige.

I have come to learn through life experience that oftentimes the magnitude of force one musters to intimidate and overwhelm can serve as a fairly accurate measuring stick of the degree of the organizer’s cowardice.

 

Judge to Scientology…

Here is a balanced and accurate piece of journalism on yesterday’s proceedings in Monique Rathbun vs. David Miscavige, et al.:  The San Antonio Express News.

Scientology’s Power Doctrine

From Chapter 12, Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior:

The seventh lesson was explained and memorialized by L. Ron Hubbard in a thirteen-page policy letter entitled “The Responsibilities of Leaders.” It begins with a several-page essay summarizing the rise and fall of nineteenth-century South American liberator Simon Bolivar. Hubbard speaks of Bolivar in glowing terms: brave, dashing, and cunning.  He recounts how one of Bolivar’s many mistresses, Manuela Saenz, stood above all the rest. Hubbard then analyzes Bolivar’s failure to empower Saenz to use any means she deemed necessary to keep his enemies at bay, and how Saenz failed to demand or utilize such power. That, per Hubbard, was the reason that Bolivar and Saenz wound up dying in a ditch, penniless.

Among other things, Hubbard criticizes Saenz for the following faults:

…she never collected or forged or stole any document to bring down enemies…

…she never used a penny to buy a quick knife or even a solid piece of evidence…

…she was not ruthless enough to make up for his lack of ruthlessness…

…she never handed over any daughter of a family clamoring against her to Negro troops and then said, “Which over-verbal family is next?”

And so Bolivar and Saenz became victims of the petty jealousies and shortcomings of the mere mortals who surrounded the romantic couple. The policy letter concludes with three pages of Hubbard’s seven points about power to be learned from Bolivar’s life. They are offered as points one can only fully grasp if one has already learned well the six lessons of a veteran Sea Organization member, described earlier.  Those seven points about power deserve some attention here, for three reasons.

One is that Hubbard and his wife wound up living the Bolivar story Ron recounted as we shall see. Two, while adherence to the policy contributed to great strides for Scientology expansion, in Hubbard’s waning years the policy’s lessons had a backfire effect. Third, this one single writing would become the bible of his successors.  It would take precedence over all other of the thousands of pages of policy letters Hubbard had issued.

Here are Hubbard’s seven points concerning power:

One: …if you lead, you must either let them (those you lead) get on with it or lead them on with it actively.

Two: When the game or show is over, there must be a new game or a new show.  And if there isn’t, somebody else is jolly well going to start one, and if you won’t let anyone do it, the game will become getting you.

Three: If you have power, use it or delegate it or you sure won’t have it long.

Four: When you have people, use them or they will soon become most unhappy and you won’t have them anymore.

All very rational and sage so far.  But the final three points are a bit more complicated.

Five: When you move off a point of power, pay all your obligations on the nail, empower all your friends completely and move off with your pockets full of artillery, potential blackmail on every erstwhile rival, unlimited funds in your private account and the addresses of experienced assassins and go live in Bulgravia and bribe the police…Abandoning power utterly is dangerous indeed.

Then we graduate up to intrigue and believing that the ends must necessarily justify the means in dealing with any attempt to lessen a power.

Six: When you’re close to power get some delegated to you, enough to do your job and protect yourself and your interests, for you can be shot, fellow, shot, as the position near power is delicious but dangerous, dangerous always, open to the taunts of any enemy of the power who dare not boot the power but can boot you.  So to live at all in the shadow or employ of a power, you must yourself gather and USE enough power to hold your own – without just nattering (carpingly criticize) to the power to “kill Pete,” in straightforward or more suppressive veiled ways to him, as these wreck the power that supports yours.  He doesn’t have to know all the bad news, and if he’s a power really, he won’t ask all the time, “What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?”  And if you are clever, you never let it be thought HE killed them – that weakens you and also hurts the power source.  “Well, boss, about those dead bodies, nobody will suppose you did it.  She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me.”  “Well,” he’ll say if he really is a power, “why are you bothering me with it if it’s done and you did it. Where’s my blue ink?”  Or “Skipper, three shore patrolmen will be along soon with your cook, Dober, and they’ll want to tell you he beat up Simson?”  “Who’s Simson?”  “He’s a clerk in the enemy office downtown.”  “Good. When they’ve done it, take Dober down to the dispensary for any treatment he needs.  Oh yes.  Raise his pay.”  Or “Sir, could I have the power to sign divisional orders?”  “Sure.”

And when one can develop that attitude and park one’s conscience when it comes to dealing with the “enemy” of the power one serves and from whom one derives his own power, the final point can be performed without a second thought.

Seven: And lastly and most important, for we all aren’t on the stage with our names in lights, always push power in the direction of anyone on whose power you depend.  It may be more money for the power or more ease or a snarling defense of the power to a critic or even the dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark or the glorious blaze of the whole enemy camp as a birthday surprise.

During my two years handling Hubbard’s communications to and from his messengers at the international Scientology headquarters, Hubbard withdrew further and further from the church.  I would soon learn the reason why, and play a central role in attempting to combat that reason.  As competing factions within the by-then sprawling international Scientology network vied for power in the larger-than-life vacuum left by Ron, he who adhered most exclusively and closely to the seven points of power from The Responsibilities of Leaders would emerge with all the power.

Wanted: Scientology Evidence

1.   Print editions of any Freedom magazines published since summer 2009 to the present.

2.  Any first hand witness to the following youtube channel and the video of our home – or any similar ones – depicted in the screen grab below:

115Bayshore

3.  Evidence of David Miscavige, Religious Technology Center (RTC), Church of Scientology International (CSI), and any of their agents ordering or executing the destruction of evidence since July 2013.

If you have access to such evidence, please contact me at rathbunmark@yahoo.com.