Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: Is Keith Little -AB-? Message-ID: <9512231454.0KXP200@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sat, 23 Dec 95 14:54:10 -0800 Lines: 170 Tom Klemesrud: Didn't I hear something about Whipdick recently posting from Ingram Paper Co. The same company Miss Blood phoned from your home, Tom? >IS KEITH LITTLE -AB-? Both Whip and -AB- use the words "verifiable" or >"verified." Keith's nickname is "Whippersnapper." -AB- used the term "whipped >up." Keith said that Woolard had a medically >verified< hemorrhoid condition; so did -AB-. Yet, in the famous -AB- Penet.fi >posting, Woolard said she had never seen a doctor about her hemorrhoid >condition. Keith a few weeks ago--and AB January 26th said that she had a >"verified", a "verifiable" condition, respectively: > >[citation from the posting that got Penet.fi raided by Cos] > >Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: an144108@anon.penet.fi (-AB-) >Organization: Anonymous contact service Reply-To: an144108@anon.penet.fi Date: >Mon, 23 Jan 1995 22:07:53 UTC Subject: Set-up of sysop - DATA > >Dear Readers, > > This is a serious matter and I do not make the below post lightly. > >[snip] > She'd had a rectal bleeding problem bad for about a year, but > had never seen a doctor for this. She hemmoraged when she was > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > under stress and drank a lot. She had to go to the bathroom every > 10 minutes when she drank beer, a lot of alcohol. > > When they got inside, she was bleeding badly. She told him > about her problem. Her pants were soaked. She went into the > bathroom and took her pants and panties off, they were soaked, and > put a towel around her. She was walking around. > >... [end citation] > >The following is from the Woolard declaration faxed by RTC attorney Helena >Kobrin, and posted to ARS by Chris Miller. Woolard swore to it Jan. 23, 1995. > >[citation] >... > 20. After my call, two police officers came to the apartment. The >policemen offered to call an ambulance for me, which I declined. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I told them about Tom pointing the loaded shotgun at me and threatening me. >They told me to put my bloody clothes back on which I did. I recall that Tom >told the police that I had cut myself in the bathroom. This was a complete >lie. I had made no attempt whatsoever to cut myself and he knew it. He knew, >because I had specifically told him, that I was bleeding from my rectum because >of my existing > ^^^^^^^^ >medical condition. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >[end citation] > >On January 23rd -AB- said Woolard had never been to a doctor about her >hemorrhoids. On January 26th, the story changes to Woolard having a >"verifiable" condition. Jan 26th -AB- suggests that I was "whipped up." like >whipsnap@cris.com (Keith Little) sometimes gets: > >[citation] Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: an144108@anon.penet.fi >(-AB-) Organization: Anonymous contact service Reply-To: an144108@anon.penet.fi >Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 06:25:20 UTC Subject: Re: set-up of sysop - data > > >Your libelous story is pure fiction. Don't you think 911 >calls are recorded? I made the call to 911. I find this >a pathetic attempt at character assasination. > > Tom Klemesrud, Sysop > > "Pure fiction"? There is a lot of factual and >verifiable< data in >Linda's statement. Some not, but a lot that is. So far, I find it more >specific and more creditable than what you and Dennis have said thus far. > > This newsgroup TALKS a lot about looking at facts, research, etc. So I >took this report from you and Dennis and checked it out as far as I could. I >called in a very big favor owed me and got the name and phone number. I then >sent out a trusted friend (aspiring investigative reporter), to see her IN >PERSON and get her side. > > Good, let's get the 911 records. I was not able to get those. But WHO >called 911 is NOT one of the key issues here: I have little doubt that you >honestly THOUGHT it was a setup. It was a bizzare night by any account, and so >I'm sure you could have called the police first. Doesn't matter one way or the >other. Clearly you thought she was setting you up, and she thought you were a >psycho. > > What about the fact that she has a >verifiable< medical condition > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >on the bleeding? (You have insisted you saw a "bag" with the blood and it did >NOT comefrom her body.) ^^^^^ > > What about the fact that she does not know even one Scientologist, nor >has she ever taken any service what-so-ever? What about the fact that you said >she specifically mentioned the names of Small, and Dennis Erlich and she in >fact never heard of either, whatsoever? > > What do you say? Isn't it possible that you got so whipped up > ^^^^^^^ ^^ >by all this a.r.s bashing that you thought she was setting you up when she was >not? It's your ballgame and your choice in how you proceed; >best of luck. > >AB > >[end citation] > >Here is a Whippersnapper (Keith Little post): > >[citation] > >From: Whipsnap@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology >Subject: More Questions for Tom Date: 3 Dec 1995 23:41:32 GMT Organization: >Concentric Internet Services > >Now, Tom has repeatedly stated that she had a bag of blood, which she used >openly to smear his apartment. > >Why doesn't he make that statement here? Isn't it *extremely* relevant? After >all, if she was *really* bleeding, the whole "attack" theory just falls >completely to pieces. We'd better ask Tom about this. > >Well, Tom? > >How about it, Tom? Were you afraid of perjuring yourself? Can't you make that >claim under oath? Could it possibly *be* that you never really saw any bag of >blood? >... [end citation] > >"Shove" from the famous January 23rd posting that caused the Finnish raid: > >[citation] > > He threatened to hit her and did shoved her around. He wouldn't > let her go to the bathroom unless he watched her. > >... From: Whippersnapper Newsgroups: >alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: More Questions for Tom Date: 8 Dec 1995 >04:05:34 GMT > >It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this. Tom was shoving the >woman around, physically preventing her from entering the bathroom, fighting >with her over the phone... > >[snip] > >I've seen clear discrepancies in Tom's story. I've pointed out that if Ms. >Woolard's medical condition is for real, his story is trashed. I've also >questioned whether he ever made a substantive connection (especially the >critical one *prior* to their meeting) that shows Ms. Woolard could >conceivably have acted deliberately for the Church as he claims. > >[snip] > >This is simply false. Her medical condition itself, medically >verified<; the >911 tapes and the eyewitness testimony of the police on the scene, all very >likely to be presented and all in her favor. > >[end citation and posting] > > Tom Klemesrud SP5 Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *