ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



SP Times Round 2 - Moar speaking out!

Discussion in 'Tampa Bay Times/SP Times' started by Div6, Aug 2, 2009.

  1. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Too bad he was lying, except for #5 ("public criticism"), which was the reason for the public relations "Reform Code" that, in reality, abolished nothing. C'mon, wake up and smell the 'Onions'. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1
     
  2. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    But it's not the auditor divulging the pc's secrets, is it? It's the AG or someone else. There is no "we promise" in the Auditor's Code that I recall.

    Paul
     
  3. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    Privacy laws don't say that it ok for executive "X" to disclose private info as long as he did not collect it.

    If that were the case it would be pointless to have the privacy laws because anyone could pick up a file on a desk and go public. The privacy laws really are to make sure private info (within an organization) stays private, not to specify that only one person cannot divulge it.
     
  4. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    Since it's "I am not auditing you" the Sec Checker is not bound by the Auditor's code. Thus Gang Bang Sec Checks are not necessarily a violation of Auditing, since they are not auditing anyway. You also cannot complain that your Ethics Officer forgot to make a metab test.

    Just because the Sec Checker sits in front of an E-Meter doesn't mean he has to use it. It's not auditing.

    "Confidential" only means that only selected personnel can see it. It does not mean that they cannot be used against you. Or do you think that the KRs that you wrote cannot be published? Of course they can, every SP declare lists your crimes. Ethics things are not unpublishable.

    Do they apply to religions? Do the laws apply when confessions have been made outside of the US (e.g. on the Freewinds)? Please quote the privacy law you think the Church violates.
     
  5. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Gang Bang Sec Checks are not covered in Scn tech, although I'm not denying they have occurred. Sec-checking IS governed by the Auditor's Code — per the issued tech on it, anyway — with the sole exception of that lack of expectation of secrecy re the pc's confessed actions. Again, I'm not talking about abuses that have occurred, only the published tech.

    Assuming it hasn't changed in the past 15 years, of course.

    Paul
     
  6. uncle sam

    uncle sam Silver Meritorious Patron

    lawyer talk...

    This reminds me of times I spent with a bunch of lawyers and some theologians- arguing about splitting hairs.
    To many of us-we do not expect to be "betrayed" by our coreligionists.
    Having your- thoughts and behaviors dragged out into the public has to feel like hell has descended upon one.
    Split your hairs--How would you feel if this happened to you?
     
  7. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    But the whole sec checking is also governed by the admin scale and other policies.

    Thus, yes, sec checking can be a nice auditing session if it's a confessional (= a sec check for the well-being of the PC ordered by the C/S).

    But not necessarily if the sec checker is an arm of ethics ("The ethic officer wants a metered interview. I am not auditing you.")

    And not necessarily if the sec checker is an arm of OSA or RTC.

    OSA (= handling dangers and PR-flaps) have a far higher priority than normal ethics or normal C/Sing.

    OSA is higher than ethics, and ethics is higher than tech.
     
  8. dontscamme

    dontscamme Patron Meritorious

    I agree. If the CoS were to disclose embarrassing information about a departed celebrity, I don't believe that many non-Scn'sts would condone this on technical matters. In the public eye, disclosure of this type of information to discredit a former member is WRONG, period.
     
  9. Telepathetic

    Telepathetic Gold Meritorious Patron

    You are correct. "Overts" being "actionable" within the ambit of the church's "justice" system and being printed in the newspaper are definitely two entirely different things.

    If I would have known what I know now I would have never confessed a god damn thing to those bastards.

    At our Org.we had all our ethics files marked, "Confidential-Priest Penitent files." It was required that we do that.

    TP
     
  10. Nurse Pinch

    Nurse Pinch Patron with Honors

    Meanwhile, back to the SP Times article....

    For the first time in as long as I can remember, Mike Rinder actually looks genuinely happy in that picture. He always looked like a crook in pictures and interviews when he worked for the org. What a change leaving that silly little cult can make. :thumbsup:

    Pinchy.
     
  11. OTBT

    OTBT Patron Meritorious

    NO. Please read excerpt from this scientology legal waiver.

    http://www.exposescientology.com/contracts/cos-confidential-files-2000+.pdf

     
  12. DCAnon

    DCAnon Silver Meritorious Patron

    [​IMG]

    According to the list gathered by Anonymous, there are now 500+ Ex-Scientologists who have spoken out and the numbers continue to rise.


    Enjoy it, you guys deserve it.
     
  13. Cherished

    Cherished Silver Meritorious Patron

    Axiom, that's a terrific post. Especially the points about DM being the ecclesiastical head and Rinder being an ED. Do you have a link to the 2007 bio page?
     
  14. Cherished

    Cherished Silver Meritorious Patron

    Ax, an ever better refutation of his statement is the Wollersheim decision.
    http://web.lexis-nexis.com/research...ff&searchtype=get&search=212+Cal.+App.+3d+872
     
  15. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    I see nothing there that would forbid publishing ethics files. The legal waiver merely mentions PC folders and "spiritual progress notations". There is absolutely nothing in that waiver mentioning ethic files.

    The proof is for example in the current Freedom Magazine: They use ethics files freely whenever they see fit.

    Everyone thinks that PC folders contain blackmailable material. They don't. First of all it's not you who wrote it. Second of all it's mainly unusable stuff like "I was Richard III" or "I killed 200 people 17 lives ago". The real juice is in the ethic files: Your own handwriting+Publishable. As is proven by published confessions in the SP Times:
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1012138.ece

    This is directly from their ethic files (and another bizarre footbullet):
    Marty Rathbun

    "While I didn't spread any lies about you directly, it did become manifest to me that my actions over the past year have potentially created black PR on you. ... To me, worse than all the shortcomings and overt acts and their effects, is the potential effect they had of tarnishing your image and presence and power. I say 'potential' only because I think it would be presumptuous of me to suggest I could do any real harm to you. ... I did want you to know that I have never regretted anything as deeply as I regret having betrayed you.''


    Mike Rinder

    "I recognize very clearly how Treasonous I have been towards you and Scientology. This comm. is to inform you of my Step B and Doubt Announcement. The announcement is to go to "persons directly influenced'' and that is most definitely you. Your insistence that I get straight is what made me confront my suppressive acts. I know that when you say something it is true and it is what has kept me going ...''

    In other words: Ethic files are confidential (= only selected personnel can see them) but they are publishable.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2009
  16. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    On the contrary! Read it again [my emphasis]:

    . . . a folder or folders containing its notations of my spiritual progress, known as a "Preclear Folder" or "PC Folder, " as well as other ecclesiastical flies containing notations regarding my spiritual progress.​

    . . .

    d. As a matter of religious belief and of ecclesiastical doctrine and law, disclosure of the contents of all such folders and files, or any of them, or any portion of any of them, to me or to anyone lacking the ecclesiastical authority to gain access to them would only violate the religious belief and ecclesiastical law and doctrine that they are absolutely confidential, privileged, and sacrosanct.

    Ethics files are part of the "other ecclesiastical files."

    Paul
     
  17. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    Yes, I mentioned that in my post. I don't consider "notations regarding spiritual progress" covering your own confessions ("I caused a major PR flap") or KRs.

    Yes, this is where my interpretation differs from yours. And obviously this is also where the Church'es interpretation differs from anyone who thinks that ethic files are covered. Again: It's proven that they don't consider ethics files covered, because they publicize such files (of Marty, of Rinder, etc)
     
  18. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

  19. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Have you been a C/S? How many PC folders have you read?

    Have you examined much of the thousands of pages of documentation that resulted from the serving of search warrants by the FBI in July 1977?

    I had the opportunity to do that years ago, when an attorney - who had a very extensive photocopy collection of these documents - allowed myself and others to examine this collection. These were all federal court documents.

    Amongst the many pages of writings by L. Ron Hubbard, detailing his "Scientology Intelligence tech," and amongst the many pages of checklists of (covert) actions to be done, and reports from those doing them, were forms specifically used for listing information resulting from PC folder culling. First and foremost, and the easiest to collect, was the list of drugs used by the person - usually young - resulting from his/her "Drug Rundown." Then come sexual details, and details such as "I had an abortion while away at college, and my parents, who are Roman Catholics, would be devastated if they knew." (Read: Big withhold from parents.) And it goes on.

    In Scientology, per its system of ethics, "SPs" have no rights, and are not protected by the "codes of Scientology," including the "Auditor's Code."

    What surprised me when I first saw this material, was that PC folder culling was routinely occurring, not only on "SPs," but also on Scientologists who were "in good standing."
     
  20. apple

    apple Patron Meritorious

    What a damaging article. It makes me wonder if these violent outbursts are only limited to staff members or is it extended to home life?