-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 The scout coyotes report that travissargent@aol.com said...

> On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 00:43:18 +0200, Tilman Hausherr
> <tilman@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:
> >On 02 Sep 2000 19:24:14 GMT, travissargent@aol.com (TravisSargent)
> >wrote in <20000902152414.25672.00000367@ng-md1.aol.com>:
> >>The Church of Scientology has long opposed, and openly warned the
> >>public, about the use of powerful mind-altering drugs along with
> >>the documented abusive, fraudulent and self-serving practices of
> >>the psychiatric community.
> >Except of course to its own "parishioners". Just consider
> >Lisa McPherson, who received psychiatric drugs with a turkey baster.
> Are you referring to this Lisa?
> IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
> OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY
Yes, that would be the one. But you seem to have misunderstood the difference between 'innocent' and 'not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,' Travis.

The American justice system finds a great many people not guilty, through a judge or jury verdict or (far more often, as in cases like this) by simply not carrying the case through a completed trial. It's _extremely_ rare that the American justice system finds someone innocent; it simply establishes that the person or group cannot be _proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,_ and leaves it at that. Even in civil trials, people or groups are still generally found only 'more likely innocent than not'; that is still a long way from a judicial determination of innocence.

A 'not guilty' verdict--or, in this case, a decision not to prosecute--can still leave a great deal of room for reasonable debate as to whether a crime was committed. That's especially true in a case like this, where the misbehavior or incompetence of the investigators played a key role in the outcome.

I would have expected you to be aware of this, Travis. I would also have expected to be aware that the results of the case do not affect the evidence, which clearly shows that Lisa McPherson was being administered drugs by her Scientology handlers--for example, http://www.xenutv.com/cpd%2Dcd/4553%5Fdir/4553%5F10.htm and http://www.xenutv.com/cpd%2Dcd/4553%5Fdir/4553%5F8.htm , which shows the administration of chloral hydrate. Chloral hydrate (described at http://my.webmd.com/content/asset/uspdi.202123 ) is a sedative and hypnotic; it is a controlled substance in the US, and thus requires a doctor's prescription here. Around the time when LRH was writing the Introspection Rundown, chloral hydrate was a 'psych drug', being prescribed as a tranquilizer to treat nervousness and insomnia, as well as for other conditions. Since that time, however, the 'psychs' have largely abandoned chloral hydrate for these uses, because of its common and sometimes severe side effects; there are now much safer drugs in these classes.

This puts Scientology in the rather dubious position of using a "psych drug" which even the "psychs" have largely abandoned as needlessly dangerous. And it puts Dr. David Minkoff, a practicing Scientologist (OT8), in the extremely dubious position of -- according to his own testimony, at http://www.xenutv.com/cpd%2Dcd/1955.htm -- prescribing this controlled substance, this potentially dangerous "psych drug", to a woman whom he had never examined. In fact, by his own testimony, when the dying or dead Lisa McPherson was wheeled into the trauma room of the hospital where he was working, and someone said "Her name is Lisa McPherson," his reaction was to think 'Oh, God, that's her.' He did not recognize her until her name was given, because despite issuing prescriptions of chloral hydrate and Valium for her, he had never even seen her in person until the day she died.

Would you please give me your honest opinion on this state of affairs, Travis? Or do Scientology policies prevent you from giving me your honest opinion? _Introduction to Scientology Ethics_ lists "Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened" as a Suppressive Act. So it would appear that, if you were to say something that criticized Scientology's or Dr. Minkoff's handling of the Lisa McPherson case--even if what you had to say was entirely true and entirely justified--you would be committing a Suppressive Act. In accordance with Scientology policy, you would therefore be committing a High Crime, punishable by expulsion from the Scientology organization and "cancellation of all certificates, classifications and awards".

Travis, how can a group that professes to teach better communication possibly justify classifying honesty as a High Crime?

-- Interested in books and stories about shapeshifting, lycanthropy, etc.?

Visit the Transformation Stories List at www.transformationlist.com For more info about me, visit www.lycanon.org
SP1/KoX
THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY WON'T LET MEMBERS READ THIS -> www.xenu.net
PGP Fingerprint: 138E F191 42B6 5C3F D5D5 821B 430B 7306 970B BCFE Key: http://www.lycanon.org/pgpkey.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3
Comment: Visit Lycanthropes Anonymous at http://www.lycanon.org iQA/AwUBObNe+UMLcwaXC7z+EQJ6owCghBe28vTOgfWD9XFoJuJRia5l1OMAn0Dw
A0SG7gGGNYFdzuIu0fraS7X8
=vakh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Go Back