Tag Archives: pat kingsley

Bullshit Alert: Ortega, Rinder, Remini

I just read the following on Tony “Backpages” Ortega’s blog in a story about alleged coercion with a secret dossier:


Seymour: Scientology enforcer Marty Rathbun was known in the organization for his brutal and unforgiving manner. Rathbun was their bad lieutenant, charged with carrying out the orders of leader David Miscavige.

Rinder: Marty told me that he did. I didn’t know that at the time, but Marty told me subsequently that he had gone to see Pat. And like, had brought more of the, ‘this is what you are going to do’ approach.

Seymour: He’s a pretty intimidating guy, isn’t he? He can be pretty forceful.

Rinder: Well, he’s intense. He assumes that he is in the position of authority and you are just going to listen, shut up, and do what I tell you. And he’s very good at that.


Mike Rinder was right about one thing – I was the only person who spoke with Pat Kingsley about Tom Cruise talking about Scientology. The rest is utter fiction.

First, there was no ‘dirt’ file on Pat Kingsley. Complete invention.

Second, my only conversation with Ms. Kingsley was civil and friendly.

Third, there was no agenda. There couldn’t have been, because the meeting was by complete happenstance – I happened to be randomly seated by her on an airplane flight.

Fourth, she was the one who originated Scientology to me.

She explained to me that she had somehow picked up the vibe from someone in Tom’s entourage (perhaps “secret source X?’) that she was anti-Scientology. She explained at some length her personal feelings on the subject which were not antagonistic at all.

The only report I ever made on the subject of the conversation to anyone was an accurate description of the above, and the observation that Pat seemed sincere and it was my view that a) she was not an antagonist, and b) her advice concerning the handling of Scientology questions had some merit.

End of story. I never heard of or from her again.

As to Rinder’s set up by slavishly agreeing (his only trick) with the ‘bad lieutenant’ description of me is a 180 degrees reversal of tomes of material he has written about me over the past ten years (since he ‘escaped’ from Scientology), as well as the testimony of other such ASC Bunker luminaries as Karen De La Carriere, Mark Headley, Jefferson Hawkins, et al… before they were authoritatively informed by Remini, Rinder, and Ortega that I was an enemy of their CULT.

Top Gun and Hired Gun put on notice

Bertram Fields
Greenberg, Glusker, et al.
1900 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA

August 12, 2009

re: Your letter of August 7 received August 10 via email

Dear Bert,

It is great to hear from you. I appreciate the civil tone of your letter as well as its appeal to reason.

Because I also appreciate the fact that you have championed fundamental human rights for many, I believe there is information you need to know concerning ongoing abuses that you are unwittingly supporting. Please take the time to consider the information I am providing in response to your expressed concerns. You may find that information raises more serious and far-reaching concerns to your client and you than those you have outlined.

I will quote the entirety of your letter in sections by topic so that I clearly and thoroughly respond to each of the concerns you have expressed.

“Apparently, you have repeatedly announced to the public that you were Tom’s ‘auditor’ at the Church of Scientology, and you have used that announcement, including Tom’s name, on your website to promote your business or profession.”

Unfortunately, you apparently have been misinformed about my public utterances as well as my web blog reference. Nowhere have I used my past relationship with Tom for purposes of promoting either a business or profession. I do not run any business. I have never used Tom’s name in a promotional context. I am a person who helps many people who have been abused by David Miscavige.

That includes someone you know personally, Mike Rinder, whom I witnessed Miscavige savagely beat on at least a dozen occasions. Bert, I am not talking about an isolated incident. I am referring to more than a dozen incidents wherein David Miscavige performed aggravated assault on the same person you and your lovely wife dined with at the Celebrity Center. Three witnesses to this type of activity on Miscavige’s part corroborated me a series of articles published in the St. Petersburg Times 21-23 June. You can view that multi-media presentation at the following link:


Since that initial series another eleven eye witnesses to Miscavige’s human rights violations have stepped forward and gone on record. Their accounts can be seen at the following link:


Each public utterance I have made concerning Tom has been made in his defense. I witnessed Tom’s career and public image plummet following Miscavige orchestrating the firing of Pat Kingsley and replacing her with Tom’s Scientologist sister so that Miscavige could manipulate Tom’s public discourse and censor Tom’s exposure to information concerning Miscavige’s human rights abuses. I have defended Tom – while keeping his confessions sacrosanct – by emphatically emphasizing that Tom’s questionable public behavior in 2004 and 2005 was simply a reflection of Miscavige’s influence; and that prior to Miscavige imposing himself into every aspect of Tom’s life he was a caring, loving family man, dedicated to worthy social causes, and was the nicest person anyone would ever want to meet.

“This is not only a serious invasion of Tom’s privacy and a violation of the priest-penitent relationship, it is the unauthorized use of Tom’s name to promote a business or professional venture, which is a clear violation of Tom’s common law and statutory rights.”

I have not and would never disclose any confidences of Tom’s nor anyone else’s whom I have counseled. If Tom has concerns about that type of activity he should be very concerned about the activities of Miscavige. He has shown he is willing to do precisely what you have mistakenly accused me of doing. Miscavige and his Church sycophants have been roundly criticized for the wholesale public disclosure of coerced confessions in response to the whistleblowing actions of myself, Mike, Tom Devocht and Amy Scobee (reference the St Pete Times Truth Rundown Series).

For more on Miscavige’s proclivity for using confessions for purposes of blackmail, coercion and control please see my video taped interview segment at:


If Tom is worried about me mentioning his name and the fact of my having audited him, again his concern should more properly be directed at Miscavige. Not only did Miscavige direct the public release of confessions, he suborned the perjury of a number of his underlings, and specifically had them state under oath that I never had a position of authority within the Religious Technology Center and had no training as an auditor. The best evidence of that perjury is that in 2001 through 2003 Miscavige personally assigned me as Inspector General RTC – the second highest ecclessiastical position in the religion – to coordinate Tom’s divorce from Nicole and to serve as his auditor.

Notwithstanding the fact Miscavige has directed his people to publicly call me a “fucking lunatic”, “psychotic”, “thug with an emeter”, “apostate”, “deprogrammer”, and “hit man” you and Tom have enough experience with me to know I can maintain my composure under pressure. I have done just that to protect Tom at every turn.

Dozens of former Church members have turned to me livid about Tom’s continuing public support for Miscavige. I have dissuaded each and every one of them from attacking Tom publicly. I have also counseled people who were abused by Tom personally – in matters that eerily resemble the behavior of Miscavige – to give Tom the time to get educated and do the right thing which I have convinced them he ultimately will do.

“Just imagine a Catholic Priest leaving the Church and then trying to drum up business as a lay-therapist by advertisting that he had been Frank Sinatra’s confessor. Most people would consider that disgusting and reprehensible. Yet, what you are doing is exactly the same”

Bert, I believe your analogy is inapt. Please imagine for a moment that a Catholic Cardinal witnessed the Pope engaging in and condoning on an institutional level the molestation of altar boys. Imagine the Pope blatantly used his relationship with Frank Sinatra to project to Catholics and the general public an image quite contrary and more upstanding and holy than could be expected to engage in the unlawful and reprehensible activity he was in fact engaged in. Imagine the Pope, when confronted with the truth, publicly published the confessions of the whistleblowing Cardinal, claimed he was never a Cardinal to begin with – not even a Priest – and was therefore never in a position to witness what he in fact did witness. And imagine the Pope continued to tout Frank Sinatra’s support of him and while hiding behind that endorsement carried on authorizing the abuse of children across the world.

Put yourself into the shoes of the Cardinal. Would you consider it an unethical decision for that Cardinal to ask publicly, “if I was never a Cardinal, and I was never a priest, how is it that the Pope invested so much trust in me that he personally assigned me to counsel Frank Sinatra”? And would you criticize that Cardinal if he went out of his way to defend Sinatra’s character and sought to distinguish it from the corrupt, pedophile Pope?

Now, to make my analogy even more accurate, assume the Cardinal is approached by former members of the Vatican and Sinatra’s inner circles seeking solace and guidance in dealing with their own experiences at the hands of the Pope and Sinatra. Assume also that they witnessed the Pope continuing to commit the cruelest abuses in the name of Sinatra.

I do not believe it would be your contention that the Cardinal should remain silent while knowing that the corrupt Pope and Sinatra are engaged in violations of civil and human rights on an ongoing basis.

If you believe I am weaving an unreal analogy, you might want to touch base with someone you know better than me — Mike Rinder (******@*****.net). He can tell you that my analogy is both accurate and appropriate. He can also tell you how far beyond the call of duty I have gone to protect Tom in all this.

To better understand my motivations and actions I invite you and your client to study my web blog – and its links – at:


Finally, I believe that as one of America’s most respected attorneys and human rights advocates you would be remiss if you did not directly hand this letter to your client. That means personally hand it to Tom: not Tommy Davis, Lee Anne nor anybody other than your client. I believe Tom will be doing himself a terrible disservice if he does not carefully read and view the entirety of each link I have provided herein.

Rest assured, I have Tom’s best interests at heart.

Marty Rathbun