PDA

View Full Version : Michael Fairman Lawsuit Against Chiropractor



Type4_PTS
4th December 2011, 09:30 PM
From TMZ earlier today:
http://www.tmz.com/2011/12/04/michael-fairman-scientology-lawsuit/#.TtvWxbLtXRk


Young and the Restless" star Michael Fairman has filed a lawsuit against a Scientologist chiropractor -- claiming she refused to see him and his family after he was excommunicated from the Church.

Fairman claims he was a prominent member of the Church, but became disenchanted with the way Church was running things. Fairman claims Church leaders got fed up with him earlier this year, branded him and his wife "suppressive persons" and blacklisted the family from all things Scientology.

After Fairman was ousted, the actor claims he received a letter from the family chiropractor -- an active Scientologist -- informing him she would no longer treat the Fairman family. Fairman also claims she refused to hand over a copy of the family's medical records.

In the lawsuit, Fairman claims he MUST have been discriminated against because he's no longer with the Church -- noting that he's been a good, paying customer since 2003.

freethinker
4th December 2011, 09:51 PM
Wouldn't it be interesting if this lawsuit somehow became serious damage legally to the church.

Stranger things have happened.

Type4_PTS
4th December 2011, 11:01 PM
If he wins it will encourage others who have been discriminated against to follow suit. :yes:

Challenge
4th December 2011, 11:52 PM
From TMZ earlier today:
http://www.tmz.com/2011/12/04/michael-fairman-scientology-lawsuit/#.TtvWxbLtXRk

yessss. Delicious.
There's gotta be many more of these occurances.
Good on you, Michael.
Let us know how we can help you.

challenge

Mimsey Borogrove
5th December 2011, 12:10 AM
Who was the Chiro? Mims

Karen#1
5th December 2011, 12:14 AM
yessss. Delicious.
There's gotta be many more of these occurances.
Good on you, Michael.
Let us know how we can help you.

challenge


It is high time this "CHURCH" interference in relationships, business, medical, family is confronted.


Michael and I received our *disconnect* letters on the same day.
Same text, same everything.

Our Dermatologist Lisa Benest OT VII of Burbank, out of the blue sky was ordered by OSA to terminate us as patients.

Because I am healthy as a horse (still running 3 miles a day !) and rarely if ever need to see a General Practitioner, I used Lisa (for some 12 years) as my GENERAL MD if I needed to ~~ say when my African Grey bit me ! LOL Here is Da Vinci known to bite every now and again.

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/karendelac/da_vinci-0011.jpg

Now how in the world did OSA KNOW that Michael Fairman and I were Lisa's patients ? Did Lisa share private medical files with Office of Special Affairs ?

Not content with having my one and only child disconnect from me, they wanted my Doctor to disconnect from me...... (I did post this letter previously, but it is relevant to the Law suit and the thread )

Here's the letter Michael and I received.

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/karendelac/LBDisconnect.jpg

FoTi
5th December 2011, 02:30 AM
Don't you know??.........Ex-Scientologists have cooties that might infect the other patients in the doctor's office. It's not safe to have them in the area. If the cooties end up coming into contact with anyone at the doctor's office, the contamination might just spread to these people and their families, resulting in all those people becoming ex-Scientologists as well. Ex-Scientologists can be very contageous, very dangerous and must be avoided at all costs. They have extreme powers to lure you away from all that freedom you have in the Cos to restrict your thinking to match that of LRH or DM and the freedom to give all of your money and your kids to the CoS.....and to sacrifice your life to the aims and dreams of LRH and DM. Do not communicate with an ex-Scientologist......especially one who has been given an SP declare on gold paper.....if you do, all the brainwashing that the CoS has done on you just might start to unravel. :scared: :hide: :nervous:

FlagEmDown
5th December 2011, 03:23 AM
It is high time this "CHURCH" interference in relationships, business, medical, family is confronted.

Considering that 2 of the show's biggest names are Co$ members, I wonder if the CBS network will be pressured into letting this lawsuit interfere with Michael's employment (business) on the Young & the Restless?

Type4_PTS
5th December 2011, 04:02 AM
Considering that 2 of the show's biggest names are Co$ members, I wonder if the CBS network will be pressured into letting this lawsuit interfere with Michael's employment (business) on the Young & the Restless?

If the cult pulls that stunt off I imagine it will result in a nuclear-tipped Foot-Bullet! :coolwink:

dianaclass8
5th December 2011, 07:51 AM
Hi Karen:

I know exactly how Michael Fairman and you feel because David Nunez from Farmer's Insurance was our agent for almost 20 years, suddenly one day we receive a letter from him informing us he would no longer be giving us services and recommended another agent about 80 miles from our home.

Nice agent? right? I wonder how the Church of Scientology found out and ordered him to stop selling Farmer's insurance to us.

And we had the same problem with Art Moore who was our accountant, then on the very day my husband had an appointment to do his taxes, Art made him come all the way to Burbank just to inform him he was no longer going to prepare the taxes for us. And this was only few days before the dead line. He lead us to believe that we had nothing to worry and he was going to take care of us. But no...instead,

He was mean spirited by doing this he put us in the spot as we had to find another accountant in a hurry. All of course by the orders of the Church of Scientology.


Arthur T Moore Tax Preparation
211 W Alameda Ave # 202, Burbank, CA 91502-3026, United States
+1 818-845-1964 () ‎


[QUOTE=Karen#1;636256]
It is high time this "CHURCH" interference in relationships, business, medical, family is confronted.


Michael and I received our *disconnect* letters on the same day.
Same text, same everything.

Our Dermatologist Lisa Benest OT VII of Burbank, out of the blue sky was ordered by OSA to terminate us as patients.

Because I am healthy as a horse (still running 3 miles a day !) and rarely if ever need to see a General Practitioner, I used Lisa (for some 12 years) as my GENERAL MD if I needed to ~~ say when my African Grey bit me ! LOL Here is Da Vinci known to bite every now and again.

[

Challenge
5th December 2011, 08:09 AM
Hi Karen:

I know exactly how Michael Fairman and you feel because David Nunez from Farmer's Insurance was our agent for almost 20 years, suddenly one day we receive a letter from him informing us he would no longer be giving us services and recommended another agent about 80 miles from our home.

Nice agent? right? I wonder how the Church of Scientology found out and ordered him to stop selling Farmer's insurance to us.

And we had the same problem with Art Moore who was our accountant, then on the very day my husband had an appointment to do his taxes, Art made him come all the way to Burbank just to inform him he was no longer going to prepare the taxes for us. And this was only few days before the dead line. He lead us to believe that we had nothing to worry and he was going to take care of us. But no...instead,

He was mean spirited by doing this he put us in the spot as we had to find another accountant in a hurry. All of course by the orders of the Church of Scientology.


Arthur T Moore Tax Preparation
211 W Alameda Ave # 202, Burbank, CA 91502-3026, United States
+1 818-845-1964 () ‎


[QUOTE=Karen#1;636256]
It is high time this "CHURCH" interference in relationships, business, medical, family is confronted.


Michael and I received our *disconnect* letters on the same day.
Same text, same everything.

Our Dermatologist Lisa Benest OT VII of Burbank, out of the blue sky was ordered by OSA to terminate us as patients.

Because I am healthy as a horse (still running 3 miles a day !) and rarely if ever need to see a General Practitioner, I used Lisa (for some 12 years) as my GENERAL MD if I needed to ~~ say when my African Grey bit me ! LOL Here is Da Vinci known to bite every now and again.

[

The problem that I see with this is that nowhere in the letter does it mention COS, or anything at all proving a cos connection.
These providers can merely say that they have other patients more needy than you, or whatever acceptable lie they can cook up.
Still, if a significant number of people come up with the same story of discrimination, a pattern will be established and the shit will hit the fan.
DM is prolly already in psychotic mode.

challenge

Magoo
5th December 2011, 08:24 AM
Type4_PTS
From TMZ earlier today:
http://www.tmz.com/2011/12/04/michae.../#.TtvWxbLtXRk

yessss. Delicious.
There's gotta be many more of these occurrences.
Good on you, Michael.
Let us know how we can help you.

I had my FSM Tell me he wouldn't hire me because
I was a declared SP. I told him: "**I** am not going to sue you for
what you just said, but be careful......that IS discrimination and that
IS against the law".

Also, after I escaped out, I was in Clearwater and went into a restaurant.
The owner was a Scientologist, and "Refused to serve me". I said: :bs:
"For you to not serve me, because I changed my mind about Scientology
IS discrimination. Call the damn cops if you want". She served me.

The waiters all cracked up, gave me high fives and said "Right on".

However in one of the main Scientology stores, they also refused
to sell me a headset in Clearwater. So I got a bunch of critics, we all
stood outside the Theater. Once it let out (a few minutes after this),
Tons of local Clearwater people (many in high places) came out, and
we told them of this sick behavior.

They ALL agreed that was not OK, and they would not shop there
because of that. Way to go, Scientology!

Michael: Excellent. Yes, more of this does need to happen.
Sunshine disinfects :thumbsup:

Love to ALL :biggrin:

Tory/Magoo

Karen#1
5th December 2011, 09:04 AM
The problem that I see with this is that nowhere in the letter does it mention COS, or anything at all proving a cos connection.
These providers can merely say that they have other patients more needy than you, or whatever acceptable lie they can cook up.
Still, if a significant number of people come up with the same story of discrimination, a pattern will be established and the shit will hit the fan.
DM is prolly already in psychotic mode.

Dear Challenge,

I can shed a little more light here. The Law firm that took this on (as released by TMZ) did a lot of good homework and due diligence. They are VERY experienced in Business Litigation. I would say they are BRUTAL at business litigaton.

This was not happenstance or "weak" case in terms of Church and OSA interference. Combined with the hate websites on Michael Fairman and myself posted along with Doctor termination and a host of other factors.......as they Aussies say "no worries."

Do not think it does not prove a Church connection !

Lisa Benest is actually a wonderful human being. Too bad she is drinking the Kool aid. Heck, I understand. I was there too.

Karen#1
5th December 2011, 09:08 AM
Hi Karen:

I know exactly how Michael Fairman and you feel because David Nunez from Farmer's Insurance was our agent for almost 20 years, suddenly one day we receive a letter from him informing us he would no longer be giving us services and recommended another agent about 80 miles from our home.

Nice agent? right? I wonder how the Church of Scientology found out and ordered him to stop selling Farmer's insurance to us.

And we had the same problem with Art Moore who was our accountant, then on the very day my husband had an appointment to do his taxes, Art made him come all the way to Burbank just to inform him he was no longer going to prepare the taxes for us. And this was only few days before the dead line. He lead us to believe that we had nothing to worry and he was going to take care of us. But no...instead,

He was mean spirited by doing this he put us in the spot as we had to find another accountant in a hurry. All of course by the orders of the Church of Scientology.


Arthur T Moore Tax Preparation
211 W Alameda Ave # 202, Burbank, CA 91502-3026, United States
+1 818-845-1964 () ‎ [


Thanks Diana !

If Ok with you, I would like to forward this information on.......to show the continuing pattern ! Writing to you via Email as well.

US Law is VERY VERY big on discrimination particularly color, religion, sexual orientation and disability.

Discrimination is Discrimination and we can call it like it is.

Sindy
5th December 2011, 09:09 AM
Our accountant refused to do our taxes. We had to scramble, at the very last minute, to get them done.

Karen#1
5th December 2011, 09:44 AM
Synthia, Magoo, Challenge, I hear you.

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/karendelac/CalDoctorsLaw.png

READ MORE:

http://richardofravenhurst.blogspot.com/2008/08/california-doctors-cannot-discriminate.html

Stat
5th December 2011, 10:05 AM
Our accountant refused to do our taxes. We had to scramble, at the very last minute, to get them done.

That rings the bell. Our last accountant refused to do our close friends taxes too, after they were declared, never mind both of them are OTs, huge contributors, one of them audited more staff up the bridge then anyone here in Cincinnati and is original Class VIII (and a true sweet heart who really cares about people's well-being, Scio or otherwise and expects nothing in return). I really doubt that accountant wants to help us this time, since we are declared too. Thank God for wog accountants. IRS, are you there?

Stat
5th December 2011, 10:16 AM
I had my FSM Tell me he wouldn't hire me because
I was a declared SP. I told him: "**I** am not going to sue you for
what you just said, but be careful......that IS discrimination and that
IS against the law".

Also, after I escaped out, I was in Clearwater and went into a restaurant.
The owner was a Scientologist, and "Refused to serve me". I said: :bs:
"For you to not serve me, because I changed my mind about Scientology
IS discrimination. Call the damn cops if you want". She served me.

The waiters all cracked up, gave me high fives and said "Right on".

However in one of the main Scientology stores, they also refused
to sell me a headset in Clearwater. So I got a bunch of critics, we all
stood outside the Theater. Once it let out (a few minutes after this),
Tons of local Clearwater people (many in high places) came out, and
we told them of this sick behavior.

They ALL agreed that was not OK, and they would not shop there
because of that. Way to go, Scientology!

Michael: Excellent. Yes, more of this does need to happen.
Sunshine disinfects :thumbsup:

Love to ALL :biggrin:

Tory/Magoo


Nice, Tory! Sunshine disinfects, indeed. :)

Veda
5th December 2011, 10:56 AM
Sunshine does disinfect. :)

Some background:

Handle or disconnect has been part of the Scientology Philosophy since 1951, and Policy since 1965. A display of "cancelling" Disconnection was made in 1968, after a PR flap, along with cancelling Fair Game, but neither was actually discontinued.

During the early 1980s, as a result of the combined effects of L. Ron Hubbard's confidential spying and covert attack tech and programs having been revealed by federal court order in 1979, and having slowly seeped into the consciousness of some Scientologists, some Scientologists had questions. But who to ask?

Unbeknownst to the general membership who thought their guru was an able-to-confront-anything "Clear OT," Hubbard was hiding out from subpoena servers, of whom he was terrified, and his primary concern was money for protection, and to fulfill - to quote David Mayo, quoting Hubbard speaking of himself - "an insatiable lust for power and money."

The third priority was Hubbard's envisioned monuments-to-himself building projects.

In this confusion, the Mission holders met, talked, and asked questions. Many still believed the CofS PR line that "Ron didn't know," and aggressively asked questions regarding the source of the abuses and criminality, never realizing that Hubbard would, and rightfully so, perceive this as an attack on him, since he was the source of the abuses and criminality.

One thing led to another, and Hubbard's looting of the Missions (which had actually began, selectively, years earlier) moved into high gear, and the mass looting of Scientologists by their founder, and his number one henchman David Miscavige, began.

The end result of this was the schism of 1982, and in that confusion, with so many SP Declares being issued, there were queries "up lines" about who can be connected to whom. In response, was an issue written by Robert Vaughn Young (still in), at the order of David Miscavige. It re-affirmed the already existing practice of Disconnection. Much is made of this by Independent Scientologists who, amazingly, still parrot the old CofS PR line that both Disconnection (of SPs) and Fair Game (of SPs) were "canceled" in 1968.

Yet anyone who was around at the time (the 1970s), and informed, knew better, and if one reads the HCOPL 23 December 1965, although later revised, deleting any use of the word "Fair Game," he or she will will see that it continued to affirm the practice and policy of Disconnection. And unlike the faux announcements of the cancellation of Fair Game and Disconnection, the Ethics PL of 23 December 1965 was very real, and very much applied all through the rest of the 1960s and through the 1970s, although, in the wake of the 1968 PR flap, usually more discreetly.

From HCOPL, 23 December 1965, 'Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists':

"Suppressive acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce, or impede Scientology or Scientologists.

"[Such suppressive acts include] public disavowal of Scientology... public statements against Scientology.

"[Suppressive acts also include] continued membership in a divergent group; continued adherence to a Suppressive Person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or group by HCO; failure to handle or disavow or disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts; being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons..."

Good luck to Michael Fairman on his discrimination lawsuit.

Reasonable
5th December 2011, 02:29 PM
Lisa Benest is actually a wonderful human being. Too bad she is drinking the Kool aid. Heck, I understand. I was there too.

How can you say she is a wonderful human being? I suppose underneath it all we are all "wonderful" but she is discriminating on the basis of religion. That is pretty bad."

You say she is Wonderful???" really.... I think she can be described as tolerable, excusable, OK, common, average, run of the mill, not a monster. Or maybe a person who will go out on a limb for you when she has nothing at stake...

But "wonderful"???? really?

She has weak moral character, maybe she was never tested before.
Maybe she is potentially wonderful but not wonderful now.

Stupid is as stupid does and Wonderful is as Wonderful does.

Reasonable
5th December 2011, 02:36 PM
Please sue.....This can be such a big publicity case. It can prove disconnection. I'd love to see what Anderson Cooper has to say about this.

Also, did you know that EACH VIOLATION OF PRIVACY LAW CAN BE UP TO A $250,000 FINE.

If they told the church that you are a patient that is a breech of the HIPPA laws (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act )

Also the fact that you got the same letter shows that they were put up to it.

I know I am not saying anything new I am just very excited because I was waiting for something like this to happen.

dianaclass8
5th December 2011, 03:26 PM
Thanks Diana !

If Ok with you, I would like to forward this information on.......to show the continuing pattern ! Writing to you via Email as well.

US Law is VERY VERY big on discrimination particularly color, religion, sexual orientation and disability.

Discrimination is Discrimination and we can call it like it is.

Yes, please show this info to whoever! If I could be of help of Michael Fairman on this and to you too!

I wish that everybody here on ESMB come out and tell same stories of discrimination from these unprofessional characters like David Nunez from Farmer's insurance or Art Moore accountant from Burbank.

Art Moore was even laughing at us when he dropped us as clients and we had to find another accountant at the last minute.

I felt exactly like Michael Fairman, I asked my husband: is there any way we could bring these people to justice? But how?

Here it is the name and address of David Nunez who also discriminated us and stoped selling us insurance on the basis of religion.

David Nunez
Nunez Ins Agy Inc

http://www.farmersagent.com/Assets/Agents/dnunez/ProfileImages/dnunez.jpg

Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
Street Address:
3400 W Victory Blvd
Burbank, CA 91505
Driving Directions
Office Hours:
M-F: 9:00 am to 5:30 pm
Sat: 10:00 am to 5:30 pm
After Hours by Appt.
Phone/Fax :
Toll Free: (866) 235-8156
Office: (818) 558-3315
Fax: (818) 558-6350
Languages we Speak:
English, Spanish

Mimsey Borogrove
5th December 2011, 04:29 PM
Hey Diana Cl8 - why not give Michael's lawyers a call and see if you have a case against Moore and Nunez? You haven't been declared that long have you? If the statute of limitations hasn't run out, they are "fair game". They need to get the news that they and the Church are not above the law.

Mimsey

dianaclass8
5th December 2011, 04:46 PM
Hey Diana Cl8 - why not give Michael's lawyers a call and see if you have a case against Moore and Nunez? You haven't been declared that long have you? If the statute of limitations hasn't run out, they are "fair game". They need to get the news that they and the Church are not above the law.

Mimsey

I don't know if it is illegal for them to drop me as a client. I think it is more like a moral issue. And they have no morals or personal integrity.

What can one do with those characters but put their names on ESMB as a reference for potential clients. At the end of the day they are just poor devils who are servile to a psychopath like David Miscavige.

Mimsey Borogrove
5th December 2011, 05:16 PM
I don't know if it is illegal for them to drop me as a client. So make a phone call and find out. It shouldn't cost anything to chat with them and find out if you have a case or not. I can understand, it may not be worth the effort.

I guess in Michaels case it is, he has an ax to grind with the church, and they (the church) have stepped over the line telling various businesses to shun him. The businesses, likewise stepped over the line. And the church has libeled and slandered him as well. No, they deserve a lawsuit.

See Diana, we have a new definition of SP for the Church to incorporate into it's scripture: An SP is a person who, by their actions, reminds the Church of Scientology and it's parishioners, they are not above the law.

Mimsey

Lurker5
5th December 2011, 05:18 PM
My question is - Why would anyone WANT to go back to a doctor or professional who behaved like that, and/or is a scno? I could never trust that person again, as long as they were a scno and remained in, practicing disconnection. Look what a so-called 'health professional' has put first - NOT the client/patient. That tells me all I need to know about that person's ethics and business practices, and I would not want that person anywhere near my health/body/person/family/children.

I consider it 'malpractice' and would report it to the proper regulatory agencies.

AND - I would sue the f'g pants off anyone who discriminated against me in such an unethical manner.

Good on you, Michael Fairman - take 'em to the cleaners, shout it long and loud, from the rooftops. And THANK YOU ! :thumbsup:

dianaclass8
5th December 2011, 05:37 PM
I was declared 10 years after I left the CofS. I think that at least for me, rather than suing them it is very effective too to put their names here on ESMB because sooner or later you google those names and these postings come up and people can read them and find out who they are.



Hey Diana Cl8 - why not give Michael's lawyers a call and see if you have a case against Moore and Nunez? You haven't been declared that long have you? If the statute of limitations hasn't run out, they are "fair game". They need to get the news that they and the Church are not above the law.

Mimsey

dianaclass8
5th December 2011, 05:42 PM
Lurker, not that anyone wants to go back to them. It is their action that at first is surprising and upsetting.

I think that Michael Fairman is doing the right thing because David Miscavige is taking his Church back to the Nazi era when they discriminated against the Jewish.

I just hope that ALL of those who have been discriminated or have experienced 'fair game' step up and put the names and information for the world to see.




My question is - Why would anyone WANT to go back to a doctor or professional who behaved like that, and/or is a scno?

I could never trust that person again, as long as they were a scno and remained in, practicing disconnection.

Look what a so-called 'health professional' has put first - NOT the client/patient.

That tells me all I need to know about that person's ethics and business practices, and I would not want that person anywhere near my health/body/person/family/children.

I consider it 'malpractice' and would report it to the proper regulatory agencies.

AND - I would sue the f'g pants off anyone who discriminated against me in such an unethical manner.

Good on you, Michael Fairman - take 'em to the cleaners, shout it long and loud, from the rooftops. And THANK YOU ! :thumbsup:

Challenge
5th December 2011, 06:58 PM
So make a phone call and find out. It shouldn't cost anything to chat with them and find out if you have a case or not. I can understand, it may not be worth the effort.

I guess in Michaels case it is, he has an ax to grind with the church, and they (the church) have stepped over the line telling various businesses to shun him. The businesses, likewise stepped over the line. And the church has libeled and slandered him as well. No, they deserve a lawsuit.

See Diana, we have a new definition of SP for the Church to incorporate into it's scripture: An SP is a person who, by their actions, reminds the Church of Scientology and it's parishioners, they are not above the law.

Mimsey

From the looks of it, it is the same 'op' that they ran on Larry Wollersheim. He sued and won millions of $$$.
His case could set a precedent for Michael's and any one else who has had the same done to them.
I think that this is one that they would want to settle outside the Court system. They haven't the wherewithal to mount another "Religious Freedumb Crusade".

Challenge

Challenge
5th December 2011, 07:05 PM
I was declared 10 years after I left the CofS. I think that at least for me, rather than suing them it is very effective too to put their names here on ESMB because sooner or later you google those names and these postings come up and people can read them and find out who they are.

Putting names up on ESMB is great, if that's what you can confront.
Taking action, as Michael is doing, is much more valuable, in my opinion.

The sooner the COS folds it's wings and vanishes in shame, the sooner you people who are still practicing will be able to do so without the fear of Copyright suits, Fair Game, and all their shit. Isn't that what you want? Is it?

challenge

Challenge
5th December 2011, 07:16 PM
Lurker, not that anyone wants to go back to them. It is their action that at first is surprising and upsetting.

I think that Michael Fairman is doing the right thing because David Miscavige is taking his Church back to the Nazi era when they discriminated against the Jewish.

I just hope that ALL of those who have been discriminated or have experienced 'fair game' step up and put the names and information for the world to see.

I hope so, too.
But that's not gonna do much to end the abuse. I say "sue the bastards".
" Not one thin dime for Wollersheim"...see how that worked out for them?

The only thing cos understands is money.

We've been putting names up since 1994, and that's great and all, but not as great as hitting them in the wallet.

As for me, I have not much interest in what the world sees. My interest is stopping Disconnection, Fair Game, failures to deliver what's promised, and a long list of other low integrity pursuits. I just don't see posting names on Boards as being very effective in combatting those things.

My 2c

challenge

CarmeloOrchards
5th December 2011, 07:22 PM
Putting names up on ESMB is great, if that's what you can confront.
Taking action, as Michael is doing, is much more valuable, in my opinion.

The sooner the COS folds it's wings and vanishes in shame, the sooner you people who are still practicing will be able to do so without the fear of Copyright suits, Fair Game, and all their shit. Isn't that what you want? Is it?

challenge

Without responding for Diana:

I can't think of anything, that I would rather not do, than get in a lawsuit with anyone.

Talk is cheap, but lawsuits burn up more time and emotion than I want to trash

Lermanet_com
5th December 2011, 07:59 PM
The only thing cos understands is money.

challenge

hence MY definition of Hubbard's suppresive person is:

SP is anyone whose activities interfere with the continued extraction of money from rubes..

Rube: "an unsophisticated countryman" (one who may be fooled by contrivance (http://www.lermanet.com/reference/graphicindex.htm))

British Parliament, 1968:
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the right Hon. Gentleman has reflected on the subject and is noted for his academic brilliance, would he say in one brief, concise sentence, exactly what Scientology is?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I think I could: it is a fraud. (http://www.lermanet.com/reference/graphicindex.htm)

Tip for Mr Fairman: During discovery find out what information this chiropractor gave to scientology, then take violations you find to the Feds for criminal charges for violation of HIPA Doctor/Client confidentiality legislation...

Mick Wenlock
5th December 2011, 08:13 PM
Lurker, not that anyone wants to go back to them. It is their action that at first is surprising and upsetting.

I think that Michael Fairman is doing the right thing because David Miscavige is taking his Church back to the Nazi era when they discriminated against the Jewish.

I just hope that ALL of those who have been discriminated or have experienced 'fair game' step up and put the names and information for the world to see.

I am sure Larry B could express this far better than I can but I have to give it a try.

This is a very significant lawsuit because it is not based on the Church of Scientology. But merely upon the actions of a chiropractor. It does not matter what justification the chiro may feel it is thin ice to skate on to use religion as the basis for refusing service.

But there again - with Scientology and the total crap of chiropractic I doubt this person can see common sense if he tried. Maybe he should become a homepath and he can get the full trifecta of inane cultism.

Dulloldfart
5th December 2011, 08:30 PM
But there again - with Scientology and the total crap of chiropractic I doubt this person can see common sense if he tried. Maybe he should become a homepath and he can get the full trifecta of inane cultism.

On the chiropractor's website (http://thorburnchiropractic.com/html?html=1&p=45) she says:

The theory of glandular therapy is "Like cures like."
The only subject in which I have come across that phrase is Classical Homeopathy.

:pixiedust: Shazam, Mick. Your wish is granted.

Paul

Reasonable
5th December 2011, 09:02 PM
My question is - Why would anyone WANT to go back to a doctor or professional who behaved like that, and/or is a scno?

I doubt he wants to go back there. It is like if you get fired unlawfully, you get financial restitution but you don't want your job back.

Also in the case of doctors giving private health information to the church (just the fact that letting them know who is a client is private information) the doctor needs to be accountable.

dianaclass8
5th December 2011, 09:25 PM
It is not that I cannot confront or not.

All I can say is, that I am satisfied with this and that is all.

I travel a lot and I don't want to lose my freedom over some Kool Aid drinkers.

We moved on and we now have an ethical accountant and an ethical insurance agent.

In the meantime, they continue being who they are: poor devils controlled by the Church. No court can fix that.


Putting names up on ESMB is great, if that's what you can confront.
Taking action, as Michael is doing, is much more valuable, in my opinion.

The sooner the COS folds it's wings and vanishes in shame, the sooner you people who are still practicing will be able to do so without the fear of Copyright suits, Fair Game, and all their shit. Isn't that what you want? Is it?

challenge

Karen#1
5th December 2011, 09:34 PM
How can you say she is a wonderful human being? I suppose underneath it all we are all "wonderful" but she is discriminating on the basis of religion. That is pretty bad."

You say she is Wonderful???" really.... I think she can be described as tolerable, excusable, OK, common, average, run of the mill, not a monster. Or maybe a person who will go out on a limb for you when she has nothing at stake...

But "wonderful"???? really?

She has weak moral character, maybe she was never tested before.
Maybe she is potentially wonderful but not wonderful now.

Stupid is as stupid does and Wonderful is as Wonderful does.

Reasonable ~~

I have 12 years of friendship and time track with Lisa and know her performance as a a human being.

Just because she has been used and twisted for Church purposes this time, does not mean that I cannot evaluate how I see her character overall.

I will not nail someone for a one time screw up no matter how bad.
I think few of us on this board have in our lifetime NEVER EVER screwed up royally.

Does that then erase any of her goodness which I have seen and experienced for the previous 12 years ?

Reasonable
5th December 2011, 09:41 PM
I love this thread because it is so proveable and so undeniably wrong and can cause so much potential headway for all the right reasons.

I hope Michael does not settle (I doubt he needs or is in it for the money) and gets a jury trial and makes this whole thing a huge public spectacle.

I found this on Marty’s blog and I edited it down.

John P writes.

According to the filing:

All of the charges against the chiropractor’s practice involve chiropractor by name

Also there are 15 un-named persons not accounted for in the causes of action in the initial complaint.

It seems clear that the depositions taken of the chiropractor's employees and the examination of e-mail records and phone records provided in response to subpoenas are aimed at identifying and getting depositions under oath from the individuals at the Church of Scientology who ordered the disconnection of the Fairmans.

Those people will probably then be added to the suit

This suit will expose in sworn testimony and physical evidence that the Church still practices disconnection, a direct contradiction to DM’s (and Tommy Davis’s and Karin Pouw’s) solemn denials that they don’t.

When disconnection is proven, essentially all the stories about former Scientologists that claim disconnection become vastly more credible in all respects because the existence of disconnection becomes a proven fact,

it is pretty clear there isnt much wiggle room for the chiro. It’s not a winnable case.

A similar case here in Florida is a pediatrician who had cared for a child since he was born sent the same sort of message to the childs mother once she was declared.
It may even be a worse violation to not only discriminate based on religious beliefs but also discriminate against a child based on their parents beliefs!

Reasonable
5th December 2011, 09:45 PM
here is a link to the Fairman's complaint

http://markrathbun.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/fairman_complaint_20111204125357.pdf

Reasonable
5th December 2011, 10:15 PM
http://markrathbun.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/fairman_complaint_20111204125357.pdf

I just read the entire complaint and every possible angle is covered.
The violation of privacy, the HIPAA law violation, emotional stress etc, breech of contract, discrimination, Dr. Benest is also mentioned in paragraph 16.

It seems that Benest may have terminated him too (read it yourself to be sure) so I wonder if she is getting sued?

I just hope this is not settled out of court.

I actually think it is likely that the chiropractor will be declared an SP becasue she pulled this in and it is a blemish on the reputation of the church.

Maybe when she is writing her list of OW's she will realize that a group that discriminates like that is evil.

If this doesn't wake her up nothing will.

Did I mention? I love this case!!

Karen#1
5th December 2011, 10:19 PM
The "Church" knows how to dish out the Hatred and ATTACK.

Notwithstanding the fact that they are THE most "HATED" religion in the world ~~ Gallup Poll found them to be rated below Atheism and Radical Muslim, in popularity ~~ they continue their
ATTACKS ~~ Mad dog ATTACKS almost like they are unable to do anything else.

Michael and Joy Fairman received

1) 3 visits from Squirrel Busters
2) Malicious tabloid Hate websites on Church site created to attack them with certain pc folder data taken out and posted (in incredible violation of confidentiality.) on the Church hate web sites.

As I received the exact same maliciousness, I will happily testify in the Courts on their behalf .....

and these above malicious acts occurred just prior to Doctor termination !

Just another occurrence in the "CHURCH" of Scientology.:eyeroll:

Karen#1
5th December 2011, 10:24 PM
Reasonable asked :


It seems that Benest may have terminated him too (read it yourself to be sure) so I wonder if she is getting sued?


YES

Caliwog
5th December 2011, 10:53 PM
On second thought, I'm not gonna say what I just said. :)

Mimsey Borogrove
5th December 2011, 11:04 PM
Does that then erase any of her goodness which I have seen and experienced for the previous 12 years ? Karen, I agree with you, she was put in an untenable position and she made the wrong decision. The logic, if you can call it that, that all your years of good contributions are overlooked by a moment's digression, is exactly how I got hung when I was declared. One goof up and: Eternity? Denied!!!

Mimsey

Mick Wenlock
5th December 2011, 11:21 PM
I doubt he wants to go back there. It is like if you get fired unlawfully, you get financial restitution but you don't want your job back.

Also in the case of doctors giving private health information to the church (just the fact that letting them know who is a client is private information) the doctor needs to be accountable.

That is a very good point.

HIPAA is becoming more and more draconian as regards privacy (I have to take a refresher course every year on this) - could be an interesting achilles heel. Thsi Chiro-prat is heading into turbulent waters

Caliwog
6th December 2011, 12:49 AM
I don't think this lawsuit is going to prove any broad conspiracy involving the Co$ and the chiropractor. The fact that the Fairmans were declared is broad public knowledge. It's all over the news and even on Wikipedia. Proving a violation of doctor-client privilege will be difficult, if not impossible.

But the reason this could be an EPIC win is that it attacks the religious discrimination that is inherent in Scientology -- LRH's order to disconnect from anyone who is antagonistic towards the Church. If the Fairmans are successful, we will have case law saying that Scientologists, at least in a professional or business situation, *may not* practice LRH's doctrine of completely cutting ties with anyone who disagrees with their religious beliefs.

And that, in turn, could raise questions about Scientology's legitimacy as a religion.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that drags LRH policies out into the light for public scrutiny is a good thing. Try as they might, that's the one thing neither the Church nor Marty can talk their way around: LRH's own words.

This is, potentially, a significant chip in the edifice. Go, Michael Fairman, go!

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com

Reasonable
6th December 2011, 11:57 AM
I don't know if it is illegal for them to drop me as a client.

I'm no lawyer but ask yourself this. Is a business allowed to drop you as a client for being a jew?

After all Scientology is "legally" a Religion

Reasonable
6th December 2011, 01:03 PM
Reasonable ~~

I have 12 years of friendship and time track with Lisa and know her performance as a a human being.

Just because she has been used and twisted for Church purposes this time, does not mean that I cannot evaluate how I see her character overall.

I will not nail someone for a one time screw up no matter how bad.
I think few of us on this board have in our lifetime NEVER EVER screwed up royally.

Does that then erase any of her goodness which I have seen and experienced for the previous 12 years ?

Karen,

People are multi faceted we do good things and we do bad things. But religous discrinination is really bad and you call her “wonderful”. I am just saying she is not “wonderful”. I didn't say she is evil.

If you re-read my post I did not call her a monster. I called her average, tolerable, excusable, OK, common, average, run of the mill, not a monster”

So I don’t think that is “nailing her to the cross.” Do you?

I did not say that there is no goodness in her at all.

She may used to be wonderful or may be wonderful in the future (maybe she has other wonderful qualities—maybe she rescues stray dogs) but as long as she discriminates she is not overall wonderful now.

Right now she has a major character flaw that she needs to overcome (and I believe she can. However for now she needs to do some work to earn that label "wonderful".

Excuse me for using a Scientology term on this board but it is like she is in a lower condition. She needs to make things right to again attain the condition of "Wonderful". People in lower conditions are not evil but they may be being evil now.

I would like to add that I do not believe this is a one time thing. Read the Fairman case paragraph 16. He mentions her in that she did a similar thing to his wife.

dianaclass8
6th December 2011, 04:30 PM
I'm no lawyer but ask yourself this. Is a business allowed to drop you as a client for being a jew?

After all Scientology is "legally" a Religion

Reasonable, you got a HUGE point there...absolutely! :thumbsup:

dianaclass8
6th December 2011, 04:32 PM
I agree with this one, a long time ago; I stopped thinking that these are "wonderful" people, if they are in and are comitting overts, they are not good, they are simply people with weak moral character who care not for others. I don't like those.


Karen,

People are multi faceted we do good things and we do bad things. But religous discrinination is really bad and you call her “wonderful”. I am just saying she is not “wonderful”. I didn't say she is evil.

If you re-read my post I did not call her a monster. I called her average, tolerable, excusable, OK, common, average, run of the mill, not a monster”

So I don’t think that is “nailing her to the cross.” Do you?

I did not say that there is no goodness in her at all.

She may used to be wonderful or may be wonderful in the future (maybe she has other wonderful qualities—maybe she rescues stray dogs) but as long as she discriminates she is not overall wonderful now.

Right now she has a major character flaw that she needs to overcome (and I believe she can. However for now she needs to do some work to earn that label "wonderful".

Excuse me for using a Scientology term on this board but it is like she is in a lower condition. She needs to make things right to again attain the condition of "Wonderful". People in lower conditions are not evil but they may be being evil now.

I would like to add that I do not believe this is a one time thing. Read the Fairman case paragraph 16. He mentions her in that she did a similar thing to his wife.

Voltaire's Child
6th December 2011, 09:06 PM
Karen, you should report the doctor to whatever medical board exists and Diana, you should report your ex agent to the parent insurance company and, possibly, to the State Insurance Commissioner.

dianaclass8
6th December 2011, 10:03 PM
Karen, you should report the doctor to whatever medical board exists and Diana, you should report your ex agent to the parent insurance company and, possibly, to the State Insurance Commissioner.

Yes, we reported the insurance agent, but the accountant we did not, we were so worried looking for another one because the dead line was only one or two days close.

Lermanet_com
6th December 2011, 10:07 PM
Karen, you should report the doctor to whatever medical board exists and Diana, you should report your ex agent to the parent insurance company and, possibly, to the State Insurance Commissioner.


GOOD! That is what Robert Minton's LMT would do, inform them of the above and help them make the reports...

Type4_PTS
7th December 2011, 06:35 AM
Tony Ortega at the Village Voice put up a good article on this lawsuit yesterday including commentary on the merits of the lawsuit by attorney Scott Pilutik.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/12/michael_fairman_sues_chiropractor_independent_scie ntology.php

Mimsey Borogrove
7th December 2011, 07:53 AM
I stopped thinking that these are "wonderful" people, if they are in and are committing overts, they are not good, they are simply people with weak moral character who care not for others.I don't agree. When I was in, I felt what I was doing was for the greatest good. That was largely how I lead my life, based on the Scientology tenants I believed.

In hind sight, there were actions I did that were not for the greatest good. In fact, I really don't know why I even agreed with them, they were stupid and hurtful and - unnecessary - but I went along with it.

Perhaps I had weak moral fiber - I really have no logical defense for my actions, other than I did what I was told to be on 7. However the case may be, I am reminded of the Christian line "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do."

Yes, it was stupid to discriminate, all she had to say was "don't talk Scientology when you are here" and treat them like any of her non-scio patients. Does that make her (which her BTW? there are two, Lisa and Charlene, involved in this mess)
an evil person? Not caring? No. Mislead? Yes.

Many who practice Scientology believe disconnection is an ethics gradient that will bring the person to their senses and recant. A wacky way to care for someone, but, C'est la vi.

Mimsey

I told you I was trouble
7th December 2011, 08:28 AM
Posted by Mimsey

snipped

Many who practice Scientology believe disconnection is an ethics gradient that will bring the person to their senses and recant. A wacky way to care for someone, but, C'est la vi.


Many who practice scientology dont think but just believe everything they are told.

They have no need to think, its all being done for them.



:yes:

Infinite
7th December 2011, 09:52 AM
Respect to Fairman. I'd dismissed him as a molly-coddled Scilon celeb who had become outraged at (I think it was) his dermatologist doing the same thing. It seemed to me at the time he was wallowing in grievance at what, in comparison to that which others have endured, is nothing unusual, just another mundane example of KSW in action. Now, with this action, I wish him success in bringing more scrutiny to the workings of the cult.

Still, it annoys the hell out of me that this latest action shifts attention away from the fact that Scientology has been designated a religion on fraudulent grounds. Scientology has been an on-going organised criminal conspiracy to defraud since the day L Ron Hubbard said he used Dianetics to cure war injuries. Now, 60 years later, the con has become so embedded here we are talking "religious discrimination" . . . crazy.


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7024/6470570839_377bdbed35.jpg

Type4_PTS
7th December 2011, 02:37 PM
Tony Ortega at the Village Voice put up a good article on this lawsuit yesterday including commentary on the merits of the lawsuit by attorney Scott Pilutik.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/12/michael_fairman_sues_chiropractor_independent_scie ntology.php

A lot of info in Tony's post, not just about the lawsuit but also about the purpose of the suit. (The title itself provides a clue):

I linked above to the article but now putting the text here below as I know some people won't click on a link unless being subjected to water boarding, and there is some important info in this article as concerns the case itself as well as Fairman.

I'm highly recommending though that you go to the Village Voice site and read it from there as the formatting is better, there are links to click on that didn't get carried over, plus there are comments - now 79 of them, some of them good. :yes:

The post at the Village Voice is here:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/12/michael_fairman_sues_chiropractor_independent_scie ntology.php

Michael Fairman Sues his Chiropractor -- in Part to Legitimize the Independent Scientology Movement?
By Tony Ortega Tue., Dec. 6 2011 at 8:00 AM

​We've said it before: Michael Fairman is one of our favorite former members of the Church of Scientology, and someone we've talked to quite a few times in recent months.
We were caught by surprise Sunday, however, when TMZ reported that Fairman, a familiar character actor and soap star, is suing his former chiropractor, claiming religious discrimination.

Earlier this year, Fairman announced that he had been excommunicated from the Church of Scientology. His chiropractor, an active Scientologist, then sent out a notice to Fairman and his wife that they were no longer welcome as patients. Fairman's lawsuit points to California law, which says that chiropractors are among the businesses that cannot discriminate on the basis of religion.

Fairman didn't return my phone call yesterday, which was a first -- but I've been told that on the advice of his attorney, he can't talk about the lawsuit.

I know enough about Fairman's back story, however, and about the former Scientology executive he mentions in the lawsuit -- Marty Rathbun -- to know that this lawsuit is about more than the pain and suffering of being rejected by a neighborhood spine twister.

It also appears to be about legitimizing the independent Scientology movement.

First, as to the merits of his lawsuit. I asked Scott Pilutik to look over Fairman's complaint and give me his thoughts. Pilutik is a Manhattan attorney who has watched Scientology closely for more than a decade, and who is often called upon to explain and interpret complex church legal cases for the Scientology-watching community at large.

He looked over the particulars of the complaint, which allege that since 2003, Fairman has been a patient of Charlene Thorburn and her business, Thorburn Chiropractic and Wellness Center in Burbank. Thorburn, the court document says, is an active Scientologist. Fairman himself has been a Scientologist since at least the early 1980s, and for a time was even the "face" of the religion, appearing on Scientology's promotional films and television commercials.

In April, Fairman revealed publicly that he'd been declared a "suppressive person" by the church -- excommunicated, in other words -- because he had been spending time with former top Scientology executive Marty Rathbun. He reveals in the complaint that it was in January that he "became concerned about the manner in which the doctrines of the Church of Scientology were being applied" when he sought out Rathbun.

Fairman was subsequently declared an SP even though he, his wife Joy Graysen Fairman, and his daughter Sky Fairman, were still continuing "to use many of the teachings" of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.

With Fairman and his wife leaving the church, "family, friends, and business associates who are Scientologists disconnected from them."

Here at the Voice, we've written extensively about the way Scientologists who change their minds about the church are declared "suppressive," and then all church members of good standing are required to cut off all ties from them in what is called "disconnection" -- even if it means a mother turning her back on a son or daughter.

On October 1, Michael and Joy received a letter from Thorburn which said, "I will no longer be your treating Chiropractor effective 10 days from the date of this letter." (I called Thorburn's office yesterday and reached "Jobee," the receptionist mentioned in the complaint. She took my number, saying she'd have Thorburn call me back.)

The Fairmans had heard earlier from another Scientologist, their dermatologist, Lisa Benest, that she was dropping them as patients, and they believe Benest advised Thorburn to do the same. (I have not received confirmation but suspect that a similar lawsuit will be filed against Benest.)

Fairman had not seen Thorburn for an appointment since 2008, but according to the complaint Joy saw the chiropractor regularly. And after receiving the letter, she called the Thorburn clinic to ask why they were being dropped but got no reply from Thorburn. The Fairmans then requested that their medical records be sent to them, but have heard no response.

The Fairmans are suing for unspecified damages, saying that Thorburn clearly dropped them as clients for religious reasons, which is a violation of California Civil Code sections 51 and 52 (the Unruh Civil Rights Act).

I asked Scott to assess the merits:


I think it's a real good discrimination complaint, and I'm glad to see it's been filed, as this sort of conduct has gone on for years without any penalty to the Scientologist discriminators. The California Civil Rights Act unambiguously makes all California "businesses" common carriers and prohibits them from discriminating on the basis of race/sex/religion/etc. Since Thorburn is a business and since the Fairmans allege discrimination as the basis for Thorburn's refusal to treat, I think it should survive a motion to dismiss. It's not a common discrimination complaint (for factual precedents I might look to lawsuits between warring Hasidic factions) but it appears to fulfill the criteria.
The most obvious legal question I can see is going to what basis Thorburn terminated its relationship with the Fairmans, as there's only circumstantial evidence offered up at this stage, but I imagine it's going to be very difficult for Thorburn to come up with a basis that doesn't reek of a post-hoc pretext to avoid the real reason, about which I have little difficultly assuming the Fairmans are right (is there really any doubt though? Again, this sort of discrimination has been going on for decades without reprisal).

Thorburn will be hard pressed to allege that the termination was due to some other basis because other Thorburn employees can be interviewed and it'll be near-impossible for them to get their pretext stories all straight. It also doesn't help Thorburn that the termination letter was sent to both Michael and Joy, meaning that the basis -- whatever they come up with -- would have to explain why she can't treat them both; it might be easier to come up with an explanation that Thorburn had, say, a personal falling out with one or the other.

The other way Thorburn's defense might go is to say, "Yeah, I discriminated but only because the First Amendment grants me the religious freedom to discriminate. Disconnection is an important Scientology doctrine and the law cannot force me to be exposed to suppressive persons because it would harm my case and threaten my eternity." Which isn't that unlike the argument relied upon by Christian pharmacists who refuse to prescribe the morning-after pill. The problem for Thorburn, if she chooses to go this route, is that the Fairmans aren't just SPs but also members of a protected religious class as Independent Scientologists. A judge will be wary of the case coming down to picking a winner between two religious groups; and especially if it means picking the one clearly violating the law.

For a long time I've promoted the idea of an Independent Scientologist suit against the IRS for disparately favoring Church of Scientology auditing deductions over Independent Scientologist auditing deductions (assuming the IRS rejected the latter), so I'm pleased to see the Fairmans take a similar route in alleging discrimination by a Church of Scientology member. Perhaps this will open the minds of other Independent Scientologists and prompt creative ways to legally redress the legal benefits uniquely and unfairly bestowed upon the Church of Scientology and its members only.

Well, that's a densely packed final paragraph from Scott, but we have, indeed, discussed this before -- the fact that members of the Church of Scientology enjoy special status with the federal government which allows them to deduct the cost of their auditing.

This was challenged by a Jewish couple who felt that they should be able to deduct the cost of religious schooling for their children under the same principle. Their case lasted 15 years, until the Supreme Court declined to hear it in 2009, preserving the special deduction only for Scientologists.

But if Scientologists enjoy special status, then why shouldn't that status also be enjoyed by independent Scientologists, who also ascribe to L. Ron Hubbard's ideas, do similar auditing, and would probably also like to deduct the cost of that auditing from their taxes? If a court agreed to that, it would give independent Scientologists a boost -- and nothing, seriously nothing, would irritate church leader David Miscavige more, we figure.

Now, Fairman has found a similar test in a simpler setting. Taking nothing away from his discrimination claim, which is pretty basic -- either Thorburn cut Fairman off because he was declared an SP or she didn't -- it's no accident, it seems to me, that Rathbun is mentioned in the lawsuit, as well as this line from page 9...


Defendants Thorburn Chiropractic and Dr. Thorburn unambiguously discriminated against Plaintiffs for the express reason that Plantiffs are members of a class of persons who practice their religion, including Scientology, but not Scientology as applied by the Church of Scientology -- and for that reason they are protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
And there's another reason why I think the "independent" angle is, for the Fairmans, an important part of this case: just days before this lawsuit became public, Fairman made a very public (and oddly timed, I thought then) declaration that he was now definitely back with Rathbun in the "indie" scene after previously walking away from it.

Fairman had seemed like a pretty typical case: after coming out of the church, he was outraged at the way it is currently being run by leader David Miscavige, as you can see from an interview we did with him in April. Like others who have been leaving the church in droves in the last few years, he walked away from the organization but not the ideas in it. Such "independents" -- many of them rallying around Rathbun -- continue to audit and otherwise practice Scientology outside the official confines of Miscavige's organization.

And, like some others who come out as indies, Fairman then also gradually dropped Hubbard's ideas and put away Scientology itself.

Then, on Friday, at Rathbun's blog, Fairman published a statement, saying that he was back in the indie fold.

"I never wanted to look an e-meter in the face again because of what a drudge it had become," he writes, explaining that after initially enjoying his time with Rathbun last year, he had gradually put away Hubbard's technology. But then, recently, he decided to give it another shot, and planned another trip to see Rathbun.

"I decided on one more go-around with 'the Tech' and made plans for a trip to Texas," he writes. And now, he's back to the Hubbard way of thinking: "Those who disparage Hubbard's technology, for whatever reason, no longer have any significance for me."

Now that the lawsuit has been made public, the timing of Friday's statement makes a lot more sense.

Having declared that he's still an independent Scientologist, Fairman will ask a court to decide that David Miscavige's church cannot discriminate -- using its notorious disconnection policy -- against Scientologists who have left the official church.

And this could get very interesting.

Veda
7th December 2011, 05:01 PM
-snip-

And now, he's back to the Hubbard way of thinking: "Those who disparage Hubbard's technology, for whatever reason, no longer have any significance for me."

-snip-



"No longer have any significance for me," as in "don't exist for me" ?

Disconnection?

Oh vey. :melodramatic:

Oh well, the main thing is that the Independent Scientologists now want the same shadily obtained tax exemption as their Scientology cousins, and we're all supposed to be excited about that, having had Hubbard's Propaganda&Public Opinion Manipulation Tech applied to us, with Independent Scientology "attacking popularly considered evils [anti-Scientologist Miscavige, etc.]," thus "declassifying" Independent Scientology "from former labels."

Mimsey Borogrove
7th December 2011, 06:46 PM
You know, this is interesting in that they said they were denying service in writing. It would be an interesting ploy in the future for the rest of us to ask for these denials in writing when told to take our business elsewhere. Or call the cops so it becomes a matter of record. Otherwise it is a he said, she said proposition. Then you have leverage if you decide to pursue the matter.

Good ole' paper trail!

Mimsey

dianaclass8
7th December 2011, 06:54 PM
Hi Veda:

Who in the independent field want tax exemption? I haven't heard of anything like that from anybody out there.

Curious in LA.

Diana


"No longer have any significance for me," as in "don't exist for me" ?

Disconnection?

Oh vey. :melodramatic:

Oh well, the main thing is that the Independent Scientologists now want the same shadily obtained tax exemption as their Scientology cousins, and we're all supposed to be excited about that, having had Hubbard's Propaganda&Public Opinion Manipulation Tech applied to us, with Independent Scientology "attacking popularly considered evils [anti-Scientologist Miscavige, etc.]," thus "declassifying" Independent Scientology "from former labels."

tikk
7th December 2011, 06:59 PM
Oh well, the main thing is that the Independent Scientologists now want the same shadily obtained tax exemption as their Scientology cousins, and we're all supposed to be excited about that, having had Hubbard's Propaganda&Public Opinion Manipulation Tech applied to us, with Independent Scientology "attacking popularly considered evils [anti-Scientologist Miscavige, etc.]," thus "declassifying" Independent Scientology "from former labels."

While I understand the trepidation in endorsing the legitimization of any flavor of Scientology, I think that Independent Scientologists legally seeking the same benefits as CoS Scientologists (or pitting them in any legal war where Independents have a legitimate chance to win) may be the best, possibly only, way to push the IRS-CoS Agreement into the open for judicial scrutiny.

Veda
7th December 2011, 08:00 PM
While I understand the trepidation in endorsing the legitimization of any flavor of Scientology, I think that Independent Scientologists legally seeking the same benefits as CoS Scientologists (or pitting them in any legal war where Independents have a legitimate chance to win) may be the best, possibly only, way to push the IRS-CoS Agreement into the open for judicial scrutiny.

By the way, my comments are not meant be a reflection on Michael Fairman, who has only been out of the "Church" for a short time, and seems to be yo yoing back and forth between being an Ex-Scientologist and being reeled back into Scientology by Marty Rathbun&his Hubbard Philosophy&Tech-applying Friends.

It is undeniable that L. Ron Hubbard and L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology are being defended, and promoted, by those who - very late in the game - have joined in to expose Miscavige's abuses. These same folks are busy using Hubbard's Public Opinion-Manipulation Tech to forward their objectives, and they've finally found a "button" that seems to be "working": "The Church of Scientology," which is extremely unpopular.

At the same time, these folks dislike the idea of Hubbard's teachings being thoroughly examined by outsiders, Exes, or "Wogs," insisting that it's only Miscavige's crimes, not Hubbard's criminal doctrine, that should be examined.

When the suggestion is made that BOTH should be examined, silence ensues. [Insert cricket sounds :)].

Marty Rathbun was a major player in the "handling" of the IRS - a "handling" that consisted of harassment, plus the possible blackmailing of its Commissioner. It was he and Miscavige who strode into IRS Commissioner Fred Goldberg's office in the early 1990s.

If Marty Rathbun ever decides to reveal what he knows about the IRS "settlement," and the events leading up to that "settlement," it could be of great assistance. So far, he has said very little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D1PkZ81gn4

Is Independent Scientology going to push the IRS-CofS deal into the open for judicial scrutiny?

tikk
7th December 2011, 10:44 PM
Is Independent Scientology going to push the IRS-CofS deal into the open for judicial scrutiny?

Assuming you meant to write "How is...", the idea is to replicate the lawsuit that the Sklars twice filed against the IRS to remedy the fact that their attempted deductions of their children's Jewish school tuition was rejected yet Scientologists can deduct their auditing payments. The Sklars ultimately lost at the Ninth Circuit because, in part, they were not similarly situated--auditing payments are unlike school tuition, the court said (the other reason was because their deduction was unconstitutional per, ironically enough, Hernandez v. Commissioner). But Independent Scn auditing payments are like CoS auditing payments, so if the IRS denied an Independent Scientologist's attempted deduction for auditing payments (or donations, or whatever Marty wants to call it), they'd be favoring one religious group over another quite clearly.

One of the phases of the Sklars trial the Sklars unfortunately weren't able to get to was to enter the IRS-Scientology agreement as evidence of disparate treatment. The Ninth Circuit even agreed at oral argument that examining the Agreement would be necessary to answer the disparate treatment question, but ultimately ruled that there was no need to answer the disparate treatment question because the Sklars were not similarly situated; i.e., even if disparate treatment were found, the Sklars still lose because their sought-after deduction was unconstitutional; the remedy could not be to give them the same unconstitutional deduction enjoyed by Scientology.

An Independent Scientologist bringing a "Sklars-like" lawsuit cures the fatal problems inherent in the Sklars suits (problems I pointed out long before the Ninth Circuit twice ruled on them, fwiw) by creating a scenario where the court cannot dispose of a problem as being apples vs. oranges by matching an apple with an apple.

Voltaire's Child
8th December 2011, 01:54 AM
Interesting, T1kk. When I was an Indie, I didn't really have the nerve to try to deduct auditing fees from my taxes, figuring that there was no "church" (Since CofS is recognized as one by the IRS whereas the heretics are not. Yet.)...

Hmmm....

Meditation's cheaper. So's medication, now that I think about it.

Veda
8th December 2011, 02:48 AM
Assuming you meant to write "How is..."

-snip-



I meant "Is." Already am familiar with the details of "how," thanks.

First a lawsuit must be filed. Should be interesting if it happens.

Time will tell. :)

tikk
8th December 2011, 03:23 AM
I meant "Is." Already am familiar with the details of "how," thanks.

First a lawsuit must be filed. Should be interesting if it happens.

Time will tell. :)

First an Indy needs to deduct auditing payments. Then the IRS has to deny the deduction. Then an administrative filing must challenge the denial. Then, assuming that's denied, a lawsuit can be filed. But I suppose you knew all that too.

freethinker
8th December 2011, 04:13 AM
I think an independant ought to try it and then hire you for the resultant case. It could bring the church's agreement under better scrutiny that it hasn' enjoyed before.:biggrin:
Assuming you meant to write "How is...", the idea is to replicate the lawsuit that the Sklars twice filed against the IRS to remedy the fact that their attempted deductions of their children's Jewish school tuition was rejected yet Scientologists can deduct their auditing payments. The Sklars ultimately lost at the Ninth Circuit because, in part, they were not similarly situated--auditing payments are unlike school tuition, the court said (the other reason was because their deduction was unconstitutional per, ironically enough, Hernandez v. Commissioner). But Independent Scn auditing payments are like CoS auditing payments, so if the IRS denied an Independent Scientologist's attempted deduction for auditing payments (or donations, or whatever Marty wants to call it), they'd be favoring one religious group over another quite clearly.

One of the phases of the Sklars trial the Sklars unfortunately weren't able to get to was to enter the IRS-Scientology agreement as evidence of disparate treatment. The Ninth Circuit even agreed at oral argument that examining the Agreement would be necessary to answer the disparate treatment question, but ultimately ruled that there was no need to answer the disparate treatment question because the Sklars were not similarly situated; i.e., even if disparate treatment were found, the Sklars still lose because their sought-after deduction was unconstitutional; the remedy could not be to give them the same unconstitutional deduction enjoyed by Scientology.

An Independent Scientologist bringing a "Sklars-like" lawsuit cures the fatal problems inherent in the Sklars suits (problems I pointed out long before the Ninth Circuit twice ruled on them, fwiw) by creating a scenario where the court cannot dispose of a problem as being apples vs. oranges by matching an apple with an apple.

Veda
8th December 2011, 10:43 AM
First an Indy needs to deduct auditing payments. Then the IRS has to deny the deduction. Then an administrative filing must challenge the denial. Then, assuming that's denied, a lawsuit can be filed. But I suppose you knew all that too.

You omitted that the Indy needs to turn on his computer before e-filing his tax form. :)

Royal Prince Xenu
8th December 2011, 02:43 PM
Synthia, Magoo, Challenge, I hear you.

http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/karendelac/CalDoctorsLaw.png

READ MORE:

http://richardofravenhurst.blogspot.com/2008/08/california-doctors-cannot-discriminate.html

We had a really bad maternity case in Australia.

The mother had Placenta Previa---the Placenta had formed across the top of the Cervix meaning that it would tear as the mother went into labor. This can kill both mother and baby--early loss of the Placenta cuases the baby to suffocate and or bleed, and the mother can quickly bleed to death. The elected procedure was to abort the baby and save the mother. Mid-theatre one of the nurses of known anti-abortion stance promptly walked out. It didn't matter that she was now risking two lives, just as long as there was no abortion.

Now I know that if I were the Father in this situation, it would be a difficult decision but, assuming no other health issues with the Mother, I would elect to lose the baby because we could always try for another one.

I am aware of a completely reverse case where the Mother was dying of Cancer but the Baby was otherwise OK, and it was her wish that after she died she be kept on life-support until the baby was full term. I believe this was completed to fruition.