Scientology Mark Ultra VIII E-meter contract leaked

[CommunicatorIC]

Scientology Mark Ultra VIII E-meter contract leaked.

Mike has a leak of the Scientology Mark Ultra VIII E-meter Contract. Read Mike's post.

Scientology E Meter with Ball and Chain
http://www.mikerindersblog.org/scientology-e-meter-with-ball-and-chain/

Excerpts:

Well we just got a copy of David Miscaive’s boldest attempt ever to lock down total control of all Scientology audiitng. A good try Dave, but I think the flock has already fled.

It is two documents, one that licenses the software and one that licenses the actual meter itself. You can download a PDF of this ball and chain right here. You can also click on the images below to get an idea of the pages and content. Keep in mind this has to be signed and returned to Scientology BEFORE you get your e-meter. I was going to excerpt the most egregious efforts to suppress all auditing outside of Captain David Miscavige’s control but almost every line is a direct statement command to “lie down, roll over and kiss my feet”. Two great lines are…


“CSI has the discretion not to renew the licence for any reason”


and


“CSI is the sole arbiter of whether a particular use of the e-meter is in accordance with the Scientology scripture and whether a particular individual is an authorized user”


Those declared to be no longer in good standing with the Church have to send their meters back in and supposedly will get a refund. I imagine there will be a few comments about the refund thing.

 

[degraded being]

.
Does that mean people who buy the emeter do not own the meter?
Are the COS goon squad gonna raid houses to get emeters, or are they
going to send a demand to have meters returned and then sue people
who don't return them?

 

[CommunicatorIC]

.
Does that mean people who buy the emeter do not own the meter?
Are the COS goon squad gonna raid houses to get emeters, or are they
going to send a demand to have meters returned and then sue people
who don't return them?

From the Purchase Agreement, paragraph 8:

The church and CSI retain the perpetual right unilaterally to recover the E-Meter from me at any time I’m unqualified to make authorized use of it.

 

[Jump]

From the Purchase Agreement, paragraph 8:

The church and CSI retain the perpetual right unilaterally to recover the E-Meter from me at any time I’m unqualified to make unauthorized use of it.

Is that double-negative a typo? Otherwise LOL

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Is that double-negative a typo? Otherwise LOL

Good catch. I copied and pasted from a transcription in a comment on Mike's blog, and didn't proofread. I'll correct my comment here. Thanks.

 

[JBWriter]

Re: Scientology Mark Ultra VIII E-meter contract leaked - January 19, 2014

Wow.
And thank you, CommunicatorIC for (once again) posting mind-boggling information.

Re: E-Meter documents - "Software License Agreement" and "Purchase Agreement and Covenant of Religious Use"

A few general questions to those here who were former members of Co$...

1. Was it the norm in past years to sign a similar 'purchase agreement' with Co$ for previous e-meter models?

2. If such 'purchase agreements' existed in the past, was confiscation of the e-meter covered?

3. If no such 'purchase agreement' existed in the past, on what basis did Co$ rely upon to confiscate e-meters? (That is, did an "SP declare" include language demanding the e-meter be immediately returned, perhaps?)


Notice how in the first agreement, the individual signing is designated a "licensee",
but in the 2nd agreement, no one is designated "owner" of the device.

Use of the word "purchase" in the 2nd agreement seems intentional.
What is being purchased?
Not the e-meter, apparently, because the agreement does not mention ownership/transfer of ownership.
I think "purchase" as used here means that permission to use the e-meter is purchased.

I can purchase a car from a dealership in two ways: sale or lease.




JB

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Re: Scientology Mark Ultra VIII E-meter contract leaked - January 19, 2014

Notice how in the first agreement, the individual signing is designated a "licensee",
but in the 2nd agreement, no one is designated "owner" of the device.

The first agreement is a license agreement for a software program. Although the title of the first agreement misleadingly refers to a "device," the first paragraph makes it clear that "CSI licenses the Mark Ultra VIII software program (the "Software") to qualified owners of the Mark Ultra VIII E-Meter...." The remainder of the first agreement appears consistent with this.

The second agreement -- the "purchase agreement and covenant" -- does appear to be a purchase agreement. It appears what CSI is trying to do (and I offer no opinion on whether this is enforceable) is say that the buyer: (a) does, in fact, purchase and owns the e-meter; but (b) also enters into a contractual agreement ("covenant") to return the e-meter for a refund if certain circumstances occur -- e.g., the purchaser is no longer in good standing.

Use of the word "purchase" in the 2nd agreement seems intentional.
What is being purchased?
Not the e-meter, apparently, because the agreement does not mention ownership/transfer of ownership.
I think "purchase" as used here means that permission to use the e-meter is purchased.

It was intentional. Again, the second agreement -- the "purchase agreement and covenant" -- appears to be a purchase agreement. It appears what CSI is trying to do (and I offer no opinion on whether this is enforceable) is say that the buyer: (a) does, in fact, purchase and owns the e-meter; but (b) also enters into a contractual agreement ("covenant") to return the e-meter for a refund if certain circumstances occur -- e.g., the purchaser is no longer in good standing.

It is difficult to think of a secular analogy. Let's say that the owner of a used car was a Republican. He sells you the used car, subject to a written contract to return the car to him for a full refund if you ever appear in an advertisement publicly endorsing a Democrat. The idea is that you own the used car, but also have agreed to return it for a refund if you appear in such an ad.

Or you can think of it as a form of option contract. Say you rent a house with an option to purchase for a set price at the end of the lease. In the meantime, the owner in fact owns the house, but his ownership is subject to his agreement to sell the house to you on an agreed upon price at the end of the term.

Applying the option analogy, one can think of the e-meter purchase agreement and covenant of religious use (second agreement) in this way. One purchases the e-meter, and thus owns it, but in the same written agreement gives CSI an option to repurchase for the price one paid (minus any deduction for abnormal wear and tear) if certain conditions arise -- e.g., one leaves, is declared, is no longer in good status, etc.

In general terms, it appears the intent of CSI is have a sale of a good (i.e., the e-meeter) coupled with a contract to rescind the sale if certain facts occur.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Just a quick additional comment. The COS was smart. Paragraph 6(f) of the Purchase Agreement and Covenant of Religious Use (the second agreement) states that upon return of the e-meter the purchaser will be entitled "to receive a refund of the what I paid for the E-meter, subject to appropriate reduction if the E-meter is damaged beyond ordinary wear and tear."

If I were in the COS, I would not take these agreements lightly, or blow them off, or think, "Oh well, everyone blows off software agreements."

If I were in the COS, I would conclude that, leaving aside any legal technicalities, I would be screwed re: keeping the meter if I left, was declared or was determined not to be in good status, and the COS demanded the meter back.

Think of the scenario. One leaves. The COS demands return of the e-meter in return for a refund. One refuses. The COS files a lawsuit against you to enforce the Purchase Agreement and Covenant of Religious Use. How much money to you spend defending the lawsuit? What do you say -- you didn't read the agreement? (Hint: Not a defense.) One likely cannot argue any monetary harm because of the refund provision. It is not like the COS (technically CSI) is trying to confiscate the e-meter without compensation. Hell, CSI will argue that with the refund provision you got free use of the meter until the time you were no longer qualified to retain it.

I'm not saying a court would necessarily determine these agreements are enforceable, or that there are no defenses. I'm asking, how much do you want to spend?

 

[The Sloth]

Aside from the Orwellian aspects, it looks like the control freaks seek to abnegate the First Sale Doctrine through contracts.

The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder's distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it. However, the owner of the copy of the book will not be able to make new copies of the book because the first-sale doctrine does not limit copyright owner's reproduction right. The rationale of the doctrine is to prevent the copyright owner from restraining the free alienability of goods. Without the doctrine, a possessor of a copy of a copyrighted work would have to negotiate with the copyright owner every time he wished to dispose of his copy. After the initial transfer of ownership of a legal copy of a copyrighted work, the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright holder's right to control how ownership of that copy can be disposed of. For this reason, this doctrine is also referred to as "exhaustion rule."

And as a further comment, this is a perfect example of the duplicity inherent in the system. Obviously, agreeing to these covenants is an example of <sarcasm> "the greatest good for the greatest number" </sarcasm>.

 

[Ralph Hilton]

It is actually a good thing to have this contract. It means that anyone leaving the CofS gets the $10,000 returned for their 2 meters and can buy 2 better meters in the Independent Field for a fraction of the price leaving enough for a round the world cruise to destimulate.

 

[degraded being]

Just a quick additional comment. The COS was smart. Paragraph 6(f) of the Purchase Agreement and Covenant of Religious Use (the second agreement) states that upon return of the e-meter the purchaser will be entitled "to receive a refund of the what I paid for the E-meter, subject to appropriate reduction if the E-meter is damaged beyond ordinary wear and tear."

If I were in the COS, I would not take these agreements lightly, or blow them off, or think, "Oh well, everyone blows off software agreements."

If I were in the COS, I would conclude that, leaving aside any legal technicalities, I would be screwed re: keeping the meter if I left, was declared or was determined not to be in good status, and the COS demanded the meter back.

Think of the scenario. One leaves. The COS demands return of the e-meter in return for a refund. One refuses. The COS files suit do enforce the Purchase Agreement and Covenant of Religious Use. How much money to you spend defending the lawsuit? What do you say -- you didn't read the agreement? (Hint: Not a defense.) One likely cannot argue any monetary harm because of the refund provision. It is not like the COS (technically CSI) is trying to confiscate the e-meter without compensation. Hell, CSI will argue that with the refund provision you got free use of the meter until the time you were no longer qualified to retain it.

I'm not saying a court would necessarily determine these agreements are enforceable, or that there are no defenses. I'm asking, how much do you want to spend?

In good faith

----it's just a business term, but ironically has the word "faith" there too. How lovely.
Anyway, in good faith, it isn't, because the tiny paranoid would make Ron really proud with this.
If you really piss us off, we will get that meter back and will decide it's value is a few pence, which you will collect by coming in and being fucked over
If you don't do this we will sue.

If you leave and you don't piss us off too much, we will lead you on to get you into the org so we can fuck you over, and we will give you a piss-poor amount for the emeter and scare the shit out of you about what will happen if you ever piss us off (if we can't get you back on lines/staff)........and we will sell the emeter and make a massive profit on it.

Am I understanding things clearly here? :confused2:

 

[JBWriter]

@CommunicatorIC

I wasn't clear in my post - my apologies to you and all.

The first portion of the First Agreement reads as a simple software licensing agreement. In it, the person the agreement is written for is designated as the "licensee" for purposes of the agreement. Nothing really unusual about that. Most 'software user agreements' of this type begin, just as was done here*, by designating who's who and what's what. (*Only once, however, with the term "licensee". Note they did not state that CSI is the "licensor".)

[If I buy Microsoft Word 2007 @ Staples, I own the discs, but Microsoft owns the IP rights of their software program and licenses me to use it.
If my neighbor steals the discs from me, s/he can be criminally charged with petty theft, but Microsoft will not sue him/her for violating their Intellectual Property (IP) rights --- unless my neighbor uploads the stolen discs to the internet and gives everyone access to free Word2007.

In the first portions of the First Agreement, Co$ designates me as the "licensee" - to use the software in accordance with their terms & conditions. If my neighbor somehow gets hold of my copy of the software and uploads it to the internet, the IP rights of Co$ may be deemed 'violated' - by me and by my neighbor.]

The Second Agreement, however, follows a different format. It neither designates nor defines a "buyer", "seller", "owner", or any other word that bestows/accepts/transfers ownership of the device itself.

A device is a tangible item, not a concept/idea.
I can own a thing; I can own rights to a concept/idea.

Per the Second Agreement - I can purchase the limited rights to use a thing, not to own the device itself.
If I am deemed by Co$ as having used the device in a manner outside of what the user rights that I've purchased, then the device itself must be returned to the entity (Co$) who sold me the limited rights to use the device.

Co$ is not refunding me purchase price of the device. I've only purchased the limited rights to use it - nothing more.
The section about 'refunds' is where I'm penalized for damaging the device they've never sold me, nor did I buy/own it.
Ever try to turn-in a leased vehicle...with dings/dents? It's the same process/procedure.

The Second Agreement's title alone, "Purchase Agreement and Covenant of Religious Use" shows how Co$ forcibly 'marries' Law + Religion in such a way as to further blur what should be wholly separate issues.

Is it a legal contract or a religious promise/pact?
Neither?
Both?
Typical Co$ crapola - it is whatever most favorably benefits Co$ when actual consequences loom on the horizon, nothing more.

JB

 

[CommunicatorIC]

@CommunicatorIC

I wasn't clear in my post - my apologies to you and all.

The first portion of the First Agreement reads as a simple software licensing agreement. In it, the person the agreement is written for is designated as the "licensee" for purposes of the agreement. Nothing really unusual about that. Most 'software user agreements' of this type begin, just as was done here*, by designating who's who and what's what. (*Only once, however, with the term "licensee". Note they did not state that CSI is the "licensor".)

[If I buy Microsoft Word 2007 @ Staples, I own the discs, but Microsoft owns the IP rights of their software program and licenses me to use it.
If my neighbor steals the discs from me, s/he can be criminally charged with petty theft, but Microsoft will not sue him/her for violating their Intellectual Property (IP) rights --- unless my neighbor uploads the stolen discs to the internet and gives everyone access to free Word2007.

In the first portions of the First Agreement, Co$ designates me as the "licensee" - to use the software in accordance with their terms & conditions. If my neighbor somehow gets hold of my copy of the software and uploads it to the internet, the IP rights of Co$ may be deemed 'violated' - by me and by my neighbor.]

The Second Agreement, however, follows a different format. It neither designates nor defines a "buyer", "seller", "owner", or any other word that bestows/accepts/transfers ownership of the device itself.

A device is a tangible item, not a concept/idea.
I can own a thing; I can own rights to a concept/idea.

Per the Second Agreement - I can purchase the limited rights to use a thing, not to own the device itself.
If I am deemed by Co$ as having used the device in a manner outside of what the user rights that I've purchased, then the device itself must be returned to the entity (Co$) who sold me the limited rights to use the device.

Co$ is not refunding me purchase price of the device. I've only purchased the limited rights to use it - nothing more.
The section about 'refunds' is where I'm penalized for damaging the device they've never sold me, nor did I buy/own it.
Ever try to turn-in a leased vehicle...with dings/dents? It's the same process/procedure.

The Second Agreement's title alone, "Purchase Agreement and Covenant of Religious Use" shows how Co$ forcibly 'marries' Law + Religion in such a way as to further blur what should be wholly separate issues.

Is it a legal contract or a religious promise/pact?
Neither?
Both?
Typical Co$ crapola - it is whatever most favorably benefits Co$ when actual consequences loom on the horizon, nothing more.

JB

I understand your general point. It appears the COS is loath to say that the purchaser actually "owns" the E-meter. This may have been a mistake from the perspective of the COS. It may have been easier, less ambiguous and less confusing to have clearly said it was a sale subject to CSI having an option to repurchase on certain conditions, which I believe is what is intended and how it will be interpreted if CSI prevails. CSI's use of the term "use" just confuses things, which is not a good thing in contracts.

For me the key is still paragraph 8 of that agreement, the refund clause.

Also interesting is paragraph 4:

The E-Meter is fully protected under all applicable patent, trademark and copyright laws. I understand the E-Meter will work only in connection with the authorized use of the software licensed to me pursuant to the Software License Agreement that I am entering into in conjunction with the my purchase of the E-Meter.

This is new. Prior to the Mark 8, e-meters did not require software to operate. According to this (and I suspect as a matter of fact it is correct) the Mark Ultra VIII E-Meter does require software to operate -- licensed a software. Another way for the COS to control the e-meter.

Also, you may recall the other thread where it was speculated -- with good cause -- that the Mark Ulta VIII E-Meter will turn into an expensive paperweight if it is not software reauthorized over the internet during during the "annual update."

Again, my conclusion is that if one buys a Mark Ultra VIII E-Meter, one is at the mercy of the COS to a degree one never was before.

 

[Ralph Hilton]

Also interesting is paragraph 4:This is new. Prior to the Mark 8, e-meters did not require software to operate. According to this (and I suspect as a matter of fact it it correct) the Mark Ultra VIII E-Meter does require software to operate -- licensed a software. Another way for the COS to control the e-meter.

It has firmware installed on the microcontroller inside. If you want to reprogram it here's the manual:
http://www.datasheets360.com/pdf/2371598606163615306?comp=6225

 

[Dulloldfart]

This refund they contractually promise if the CofS member goes rogue and forfeits his contractual right to "own" the meter any more, do they pay it in CASH or a credit note towards "further services" (after doing A-E etc. ).

I don't see a situation occurring where they send in some goon squad to try and pick the thing up from an unwilling person. If they have decided to leave the cult, to get $5,000 back for an overpriced piece of shit is a big bonus.

It's hard to believe the cult would offer to buy the things back in cash AT FULL PRICE if someone decides to leave. That is a HUGE financial liability. They don't even state any deduction for normal wear and tear.

Paul

 

[Terril park]

I think these contracts for the new meter are a foot bullet.
Its hard to see what is hoped to be gained. CO$ no longer
seems to try to block sales on E-bay. There are about a dozen listed.

The FZ makes more and better meters at about 10% of the cost.
Then presumably there will be more mark VIIs coming to the market.

Anyone leaving the CO$ and wanting to audit will have no problem
getting a meter. And CO$ seems to be developing NED [new era of
discontent] with things like these contracts.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

This refund they contractually promise if the CofS member goes rogue and forfeits his contractual right to "own" the meter any more, do they pay it in CASH or a credit note towards "further services" (after doing A-E etc. ).

I don't see a situation occurring where they send in some goon squad to try and pick the thing up from an unwilling person. If they have decided to leave the cult, to get $5,000 back for an overpriced piece of shit is a big bonus.

It's hard to believe the cult would offer to buy the things back in cash AT FULL PRICE if someone decides to leave. That is a HUGE financial liability. They don't even state any deduction for normal wear and tear.

Paul

If an auditor leaves, is declared SP, is found to not be in good standing, etc., and refuses to return his Mark Ultra VIII E-meters (remember, he has two) for a refund after return, then CIS's remedy would be to sue the auditor for specific performance of the auditor's promise to return the E-meters under such circumstances. One suspects that if CSI goes that route, the Court would also enforce the refund provision.

Whether CSI chooses to sue in court is up to CSI. It might be a bluff. How many people are going to refuse to return the meter when threatened with a lawsuit?

 

[Balthasar]

If the E-meter gets lost or stolen it means now big trouble for the licensee. It is a big massive responsibility for the new owner. In due course of time it might require a "Professional E-meter Ownership Course" to level up to this new standard of use.

Also, once parishioners have bought the E-meter or better, bought the right to use it, the Church then immediately has more leverage on them. The CoS will have more reason than ever to harass about stuff relating to E-meter like inquiring of proper use of licensing, expired software (yearly renewal), is the E-meter securely stored and where. And most importantly, why is this religious tool "not used (enough) as intended"?......

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

Over on Mike's Blog the following was posted. I don't know if it was posted by a lawyer or not.

Still on your side says
January 20, 2014 at 1:59 am

This is a software licensing agreement that is very poorly written. It is not a license to the e-meter because the e-meter is not leased, it is sold. Title passed from the church to the buyer when the sale took place. This agreement makes threats it is not allowed to make. It claims a right to determine the conditions and environment in which the e-meter is used, but the license only gives it the ability to govern the conditions in which the software is used. So, the church can demand the software only be used on one compatible e-meter, and that the software not be reverse engineered or re-sold, but it has no authority after the sale to demand that the e-meter only be used by end users Miscavige deems worthy. Miscavige sold the e-meter and now he has no rights under First Amendment that allow him to violate a customer’s e-meter ownership rights. Instead, the customer’s rights of ownership generally will trump Miscavige’s rights. The church owns the copyright and the patent, but the e-meter is not owned by the church after it is sold, anymore than Apple owns an iPad after it is sold.

Further the software termination clauses may not be enforceable because they are arbitrary and do not provide for compensation. The license says nothing about refunds and it’s not even clear whether the church has sole rights to the software. Perhaps the manufacturer sells different versions of it along with different versions of the e-meter. If so, an e-meter owner may be able to legally purchase that software.

The $5k e-meter is going to cause the church and Miscavige huge problems. There will be legal challenges, probably in the near future, when Miscavige terminates an e-meter and refuses a refund. No court will tolerate a software seller arguing it is immune from breach of contract actions due to religious reasons.

 

[Helena Handbasket]

I have a few questions about the Poobah Meter:

1. Does it connect to the internet?

2. If so, do you have to connect it to the internet?

3. If so, will it connect up to church servers automatically, without the user's asking it to?

4. Does each meter have an electronically embedded serial number?

5. If all of the above are true, and the church doesn't like you, can and will they disable your meter from a distance (kill switch)?

Helena, being paranoid