Disconnection - A bit of a bitch that causes a hitch.

[Carmel]

Carmel, my Love, you got me thinking!

You know, this whole “Disconnection” thing can be used as a key stake in the heart of the monster.

When Xeno frames the terms of reference for the “Royal Commission/Judicial Inquiry,” what should be mentioned are the following facts for use to whip the CofS:

1) The CofS has denied disconnection is practiced as either retaliation or as duress on its members.

2) The ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902, expressly forbids the above (retaliation/duress/pressure/influence) from being used to silence or otherwise intimidate or suppress witnesses.

3) The terms of the COMMISSION should make reference to the historically proven, long standing and continued practice by the CofS of disconnection and Fair Game policy and warn both potential witnesses and the CofS that such illegal interference with witnesses during or after the completion of the COMMISSION’S investigation will not be tolerated and that to avoid any possibility of potential witnesses being intimidated due to historic behaviour by the CofS, it is to state for the record that it and its members will not so retaliate or invoke any policies to punish witnesses before the COMMISSION under pain of Contempt of Court.

4) I’m not up to date on the Australian Constitution (there have been two changes in published form since I was there), but last I heard it does not contain the same provisions of freedom of speech as the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS . . . which, unfortunately has no force of law within Oz. See the Declaration here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ and here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/
But the laws on tampering with witnesses, before judicial proceedings, and as specifically articulated in The ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 should be invoked against the CofS to give freedom of witness to those who wish to speak.

5) What is to be exposed, loud and clear, is that most scientologists live in fear of and under the threat of discrimination and retaliatory action based on CofS practice in the event of their “breaking ranks” and speaking any truth that is derogatory of the CofS and its practices.

6) The setting up of the COMMISSION and its terms of reference should address this very issue of CofS conduct (as business as usual for them), and the COMMISSSION should gazette the fact of this CofS practice and give protection loud and clear to witnesses that it is safe for them to speak.

7) from the point of view of “the faithful” churchies, well, if they want things cleaned up, then this is their chance to do so.

Rog

Good post Roger, and yes. "Witness tampering" it is indeed.......If it could be seen that way, and if there could be something that would give a "guarantee" in the minds of those involved, that'd be grand.

Re my op - This situation is *known about* to varying degrees. Very few though understand the "web" and the complexities so often involved.

There are two facets to disconnection. Losing one's own loved ones and/or losing a job and/or being adversely affected oneself, is only ONE of them, and that's hard enough in itself. The other is about imposing something very serious on others, and sometimes many others.

Look at it this way.....

As an individual we may ponder for some time and/or put things into place, before we step out and cop the disconnection thing. I know I did. I afforded myself the time to get my immediately family and some friends on side first. A couple of them had a couple of situations which they needed time to deal with too. Fortunately, we had been off lines for a decade, so didn't have employees nor business associates who were Scientologists and my family members were either never in Scn or already "out", so it was 'relatively' simple *this time*. Despite it being relatively simple, coming out *did* have adverse affects on others who had no time and/or who never agreed to the predicament I put them in.

Ten years prior though, when I was faced with a declare and disconnection, with 30 Scn employees, Scientologists as investors in one of my companies, with my closest friends and some family members still "in"...... I couldn't and didn't do it. The consequences would have been way worse.......devastating financially and psychologically not only for me, but for so many others as well. I did have the option to make that choice back then. But if I made the choice to cop the declare and disconnection, I would not only have been putting myself in serious poo, but also putting others, who had no say in the matter, in serious poo too.

For some who disconnect, there is hardly any "ripple effect". For some though, it is huge! It's not just about losing a job or loved ones, although that is huge in itself.

Re tv - Blocking out faces and voices is an option when talking about things in general terms. It doesn't hide identity though, when talking of one's experience or giving specifics on what one witnessed.

Re submissions - It would be great to this sorted, because currently they need to include names and the submissions are available on public record. (If there's a judicial inquiry though, it'll be a whole different ball game).

If I've given the idea that people can't and won't come forward because of this situation, then I've given you the wrong idea. There are so many now who can and will, especially as we'll have about a month before they need to. The Inquiry and the media has inspired many, and many now believe that speaking out will be worth the personal expense, because it will make a difference. For some though, I don't know how they'll get around it before the house of cards comes down, and for others, they have a load of stuff to scramble and deal with before they could.

This problem would be markedly decreased in Sydney, if everyone knew where everyone else was at, and if everyone announced it on the same day. I don't see how the people involved would have the trust required to do it though as Paul describes it could be done, but if they did, then we'd have a very different scene here. So many are "out", but many of them still can't be *seen* as out.

 

[clamicide]

Thank you.

It not always cut and dry, and thank you for bringing it to light again. For me, I've been disconnected with by my son. Well, my ex still talks to me. He kind of just ignores it now, but won't advertise it. I'm sort of under the radar, and folks who try could put together my identity can. If, I just posted my name, however, shit would come down on my ex like hell. Why do I care? Well, he'd cave like a bunny. Right now, he somewhat listens--and he's still in contact with my son in the SO who has disconnected. He is also a major influence on him. Not screaming to high heavens gives me a modicum of hope that he can be reached. It sucks. The folks I know, my roomies and such, know I'm an ex. They also understand why I don't broadcast. Some exes don't. I don't know how to get around it.

 

[Carmel]

<snip>
You need to stop beating yourself up!!! Yesterday CoS had total unencumbered power. Today the abuse is worldwide news and the SENATE of a country is going after them. That's big. Stop ing yourself or I'll have to ya!!
<snip>

Ah, ya funny girl! I'm not beating myself up at all. Yesterday though, we had a situation that was just frustrating beyond belief. There were/are people involved seriously caught between a rock and a hard place. They don't have a choice right now to do what they want to do, thanks to this particular control mechanism used by the CofS.

We have time, and yes, it'll all go forward......it's just aggravating to say the least, at times.

 

[Enthetan]

Good post Roger, and yes. "Witness tampering" it is indeed.......If it could be seen that way, and if there could be something that would give a "guarantee" in the minds of those involved, that'd be grand.

If something could be issued to Co$ warning them that any retaliation (such as ordering disconnection) against witnesses would be deemed witness tampering, then the Church would be in a bad situation.

They could not be sure which of the associates of the witness were themselves disaffected enough to testify themselves. So if somebody calls up saying "you need to disconnect from X", and the recipient of the comm has a recorder going, then the caller can be immediately arrested for witness tampering. A couple of incidents like that would put the Church into very hot water. And any "dirty tricks" by OSA or their PIs would also risk arrest for witness tampering. Since many PIs seem to be non-Scns doing it for the money, the amount of money they would demand to take that kind of risk would be more than DM would be comfortable spending.

 

[degraded being]

If something could be issued to Co$ warning them that any retaliation (such as ordering disconnection) against witnesses would be deemed witness tampering, then the Church would be in a bad situation.

They could not be sure which of the associates of the witness were themselves disaffected enough to testify themselves. So if somebody calls up saying "you need to disconnect from X", and the recipient of the comm has a recorder going, then the caller can be immediately arrested for witness tampering. A couple of incidents like that would put the Church into very hot water. And any "dirty tricks" by OSA or their PIs would also risk arrest for witness tampering. Since many PIs seem to be non-Scns doing it for the money, the amount of money they would demand to take that kind of risk would be more than DM would be comfortable spending.

A good reason why it's more important than ever before to record *all* phone calls from the COS. Because now they will be scouting and sniffing around trying to find out *who* might say something about them. They may couch their conversations with warnings not to speak at the enquiry. If they do, even in a *friendly* non agressive way, it is tampering with an enquiry. Very very serious for them and proof of their aims to subvert the law.

Do you (all) have recorders that can record calls?

 

[FoTi]

I remember you telling me ages ago, Carmel how some best friends in Scientology were both "out" and "under the radar" and had told you, but they hadn't told each other.

That is crazy stuff. I would hope that, for a start, people who know you (and Kev and others) might trust you to disclose to someone else who is known to you to be out and to see if you can't link people up that way one by one.

I told you once that I imagined you holding a dinner party or an afternoon tea where a small group of people who trusted you agreed to come, not knowing who was going to be there, but knowing that you would only invite people you knew were definitely "out". Imagine turning up to such an event and finding your best friend there too. Or your boss.

That'd be cool.

Yeh, that'd be cool!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re tv - Blocking out faces and voices is an option when talking about things in general terms. It doesn't hide identity though, when talking of one's experience or giving specifics on what one witnessed.

See if any will agree to pre-scripted interviews. The sort of thing where the interviewee pre-edits his story and describes his situation in general terms without identifying details.

As an example of the type:

Back when was in, I paid for my husband's bridge. He then went on staff and wound up divorcing me after he had an affair with another staff member. I had custody of the kids because I had more income & time not being staff. He then joined the SO. When I wouldn't agree to let my young teenager leave school and enter the SO, I was declared, "fair gamed", and put through another custody battle.


That sort of thing, with just so much detail as illustrates the pattern of behavior without so much as to be clearly identifying. Record a few of those and intermix them with interviews from those willing to be identified. It establishes the pattern as well as the degree of fear by which the church controls parishioners lives.

Ah, ya funny girl! I'm not beating myself up at all.

See to it you don't. That's what friends are for.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Purple Rain]

oh go right ahead. Should be of enormous help.

That's right, because leaving people to sit in their fear and live under the thumb of others is far more helpful than offering them practical assistance or encouragement to escape from an iron fist.

Maybe they need some *practical* help is all I'm saying. Maybe sometimes it *is* kinder to hold up the mirror and let them see that the helmet they're wearing really is a barber's shaving dish, especially if they're going to base their whole life on it.

"To have and to hold till death do us part, or unless you leave Scientology, whichever happens first, forsaking all others ... "

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

Awesome OP Carmel!
I can understand the air of frustration too, it just seems that everything takes so long/doesn't happen fast enough *sigh* ~But the wheels are rolling none-the-less, this week, it seems to me, between your and Julia's incredibly powerful interviews bigcry: me) and the raids in Turin Italy, spin them even faster.
I am just catching up with some of the threads, this is one I'm glad I didn't miss. There are some very, very good posts in here, I particularly like Rodger's take on things, much respect to ya Rog.
One of the common denominators I have found in my readings on CoS, especially from those who are giving their stories, is the amount of fear that is created and used to keep people entrapped, it all leads back to the 'source', and is no small demon to conquer.
I wish for all to find their freedom and voices, but essentially freedom~mind and body~ from the trap that Ron built.

 

[Carmel]

<snip>
One of the common denominators I have found in my readings on CoS, especially from those who are giving their stories, is the amount of fear that is created and used to keep people entrapped, it all leads back to the 'source', and is no small demon to conquer.
<snip>

Yep, sometimes that "fear" is the problem, and people would be better to blast through it, because it's worse than anything the CofS could do to them if they spoke out.

Sometimes this is NOT the case though. Maybe I should have used the word "threat" instead of fear, in my op, because that is what I am referring to.......Real threats that one would be foolish to ignore.

There is a difference between the two. While the "fear" of repercussions is a tough one to overcome (and people should be granted all the time they need to overcome it), the threat of some repercussions that would actually occur is a different matter, and one *would* be foolish to act without somehow putting things into place first.

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

I know ^^^ understood.

 

[RogerB]

Protection of Witnesses

I see on the Oz Gov website: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/wit_sub/bro_thr.htm

Under the heading Title:
Procedures to be observed by Senate Committees for the protection of witnesses

. . . . snipped

Matters constituting contempts in relation to Senate committees

Without derogating from its power to determine that particular acts constitute contempt, the Senate declares as a matter of general guidance, that the following breaches may be treated by the Senate as contempts.

Interference with witnesses

A person shall not, by fraud, intimidation, force or threat of any kind, by the offer or promise of any inducement or benefit of any kind, or by other improper means, influence another person in respect of any evidence given or to be given before the Senate or a committee, or induce another person to refrain from giving such evidence.

Molestation of witnesses

A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, another person on account of any evidence given or to be given before the Senate or a committee.

Thus, it is obvious that the duress and threats posed by the CofS policies and conduct toward those "who speak out against the church" places it at risk of serious repercussions.

To be noted that this is in respect to the Senate calling for submissions of information to help it in its task of evaluating the need of and the proper context of amending the current tax regulations.

More severe would be the repercussions of such action by the church against witnesses before a Royal Commission.

More to come later.

R

 

[Zinjifar]

Unfortunately, the 'Church' can and will hide its own criminality and 'causality' in the obstruction of justice and witness tampering and intimidation behind 'plausible deniability'.

What's needed is the internal memos and 'whistleblowers' to tell the truth. What's needed is raids *now* to preserve the evidence of 'Church' operations to criminally and deliberately with malice aforethought obstruct justice.

Do the 'top down' instructions on how to go about shuddering witnesses into silence exist?

Of course they do.

Zinj

 

[RogerB]

Unfortunately, the 'Church' can and will hide its own criminality and 'causality' in the obstruction of justice and witness tampering and intimidation behind 'plausible deniability'.

Bullshit, Zinj . . . . they will attempt to do so . . . oh yes, they will do their usual but it will not hide them or their crimes and causation.

What's needed is the internal memos and 'whistleblowers' to tell the truth. What's needed is raids *now* to preserve the evidence of 'Church' operations to criminally and deliberately with malice aforethought obstruct justice.

Agreed. Maybe all you clever types who've been at this for years might have access to the materials collected by the FBI in the LA and DC raids back there in the late 1970's . . . or at least press reports on such. Certainly Paulette C got such access.

Do the 'top down' instructions on how to go about shuddering witnesses into silence exist?

Of course they do.

Zinj

Good, I'm glad you know that. Now I expect you to make a full submission of such to the Senate for their edification. And I urge all who have first hand experience of such, or knowledge of such documents to also pipe up and make the knowledge known to the Senate.

I have written as I have on the issue of protection of witnesses and penalties for the standard practices of the CofS against those who speak in order that those who might be cowered into not speaking will find comfort enough to speak.

It does not help us, Zinj, to pontificate on what the CofS will or won't do or on what it will "get away with" or that we will not succeed in our endeavor.

I prefer to express and deal with the facts involved that, when put to good use, will yield the outcome we are after.

Rogerb

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Yep. It's blackmail, plain and simple.

I've never approved of blackmail or, really, any kind of pressure to make people do things.

 

[FinallyFree]

Great post Carmel. You explain it very well. Disconnection is part of the hell of scientology. I personally did it very slowly, little by little but I am finally at the point where I am fully out to my immediate family and know they will not disconnect from me under any circumstances.

I just couldn’t loose my family. I understand what these people are through and am so pissed the cult was smart enough to ensnare their followers into this trap. All it is, is a group preservation instinct that is drilled in to us by the very people lying to us. The sad thing is that it is the individual’s choice. They choose to disconnect. A choice that is based on misinformation and out right lies. (not to mention all the scientologist DOESN’T know is going on behind the scenes).

I am ready. I have some personal things I am handling in my life but in the next 4-6 months I am going to come out and announce who I am.

I am ready and I don’t know what I can do to help. Hell maybe I will start with that scientologist who sucker-punched me in the gut at the LA Org Ideal Org Protest.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

It does not help us, Zinj, to pontificate on what the CofS will or won't do or on what it will "get away with" or that we will not succeed in our endeavor.

I prefer to express and deal with the facts involved that, when put to good use, will yield the outcome we are after.

Rogerb

Mark A. Baker