A question for reformers of Scientology

From: Bob Minton <bob@minton.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 19:52:33 -0500
Subject: A question for reformers of Scientology
Organization: The Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., Clearwater, Florida
Message-ID: <sh0j5skqotjtethk5fpt4oogl05q5i699n@4ax.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Today, in a court hearing in Florida re the McPherson matter, Morris Weinberg complained that the Lisa McPherson Trust was trying to destroy the Church of Scientology by "trying to REFORM it." It's incredible that lawyers for the church would characterize the Lisa McPherson Trust's efforts to curtail the abusive and deceptive practices of Scientology Inc., i.e.

REFORM, as an attempt to DESTROY Scientology. This of course is an absurd characterization. The Lisa McPherson Trust is simply trying to bring about a reform of Scientology Inc.'s abusive and deceptive practices. The Trust hopes to create an atmosphere in which the perceived beneficial aspects of Scientology can be practiced without the abuses and deception currently perpetrated by Scientology, Inc.

The question should either be answered from the perspective of a "fixer" of the existing Church of Scientology or from the viewpoint of a new church to be called either the Reformed Church of Scientology or the Orthodox Church of Scientology depending on your view of the current scene.

I'm curious to know from real Scientologists what Scientology without the abuse and deception would look like? I think it would be beneficial for all concerned if we started a dialogue on this topic in this public forum. I think it would be fair to say that we would all welcome input from representatives of Scientology, Inc.

Everyone should feel free to put your two cents wort end on this important discussion.

Bob Minton -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.1 iQA/AwUBOFmJQmgj/yM+AH/OEQJn4wCgj+mg595m8SMQIgDrOf0ozCp+jnUAniXG 4plxZPtrx5hV6ukMRgTolkbq =r7gX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

From: "Safe ... www.fza.org" <Safe@scientology.at>
Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 18:19:45 -0800
Message-ID: <38599caf.0@news2.lightlink.com>
Oh my gosh, Bob, you're trying to stop the abusive and deceptive practices of CofS, Inc. by "trying to REFORM it."

Such a bad word reform. How SP of you! ;-) What's amazing is the the whole idea of scientology tech is to "reform" (rehabilitate) the spirit. LRH says that SP's are AGAINST reform of any kind. So I think maybe we know who the real suppressive is and it AINT you Bob.

A reformed Church would look more like the old happy franchise network with LOTS of people doing well and prospering.

The tech should be freed from the Church of Spiritual Technology and RTC. It should be donated to the public domain.

There should be no monopolies of scientology. Organizations should be able to charge what they like. There SHOULD be competition. Whoever produces the best products and services and prices wins just like in any free economy. The subject should be allowed to grow and develop as a real science like it's claimed to be.

There should be cooperation with other therapy groups. Making a better world requires cooperation, not an arrogant "we're the only one" stance. Money should be spent for 3rd party validation with the help of the most tech trained Senior Case Supervisor who really knows what he's doing in order to finally scientifically validate the techniqes of scientology. The results should be made public.

I wrote a huge list of "Theta ideas" to move in this direction.

I'll try to find them and post it here.

Safe

From: "roger gonnet" <secticide@worldnet.fr>
Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 08:53:42 +0100
Message-ID: <83cqvo$va5$1@news6.isdnet.net>
Safe ... www.fza.org <Safe@scientology.at> a écrit dans le message :

38599caf.0@news2.lightlink.com...

> Oh my gosh, Bob, you're trying to stop the abusive and deceptive practices
> of CofS, Inc. by "trying to REFORM it." Such a bad word reform. How SP of
> you! ;-)
>
> What's amazing is the the whole idea of scientology tech is to "reform"
> (rehabilitate) the spirit. LRH says that SP's are AGAINST reform of any
> kind. So I think maybe we know who the real suppressive is and it AINT you
> Bob.
>
> A reformed Church would look more like the old happy franchise network with
> LOTS of people doing well and prospering.
Yes, but sending to SP Hubbard or SP miscavige lots of money to get them trapped into the most monstruous brainwashing system ever thought of? I don't agree at all that missions were so innocent: I've had mine, and sent lots of people to "death";

some have been so profoundly "changed" by scieno experiments that they are now really dead, alas, undirectly because of scieno HUBBARD "REFORMED" crap.

> The tech should be freed from the Church of Spiritual Technology and RTC. It
> should be donated to the public domain. There should be no monopolies of
> scientology. Organizations should be able to charge what they like. There
> SHOULD be competition. Whoever produces the best products and services and
> prices wins just like in any free economy. The subject should be allowed to
> grow and develop as a real science like it's claimed to be.
Yes, but before any activity should be permitted with that "tech" which is no more than a mere fraud to get money, as it is now, it should be entirely subjected to experiments by competent psychologists, doctors, philosophs, scientists. I'll never accept any part of the scam going to be sold out to persons who have not the least idea of what is inside the tech, like you, Safe. I don't doubt you could be a good faith guy, but listen, go first to university, make your degrees, your doctorate, and speak later. Without that, I can only consider that you are a brainwashed guy, that you don't have much competence in the field of human mind and spirit (like I consider myself, though far more experienced in scientology than you seem to be).

> There should be cooperation with other therapy groups. Making a better world
> requires cooperation, not an arrogant "we're the only one" stance. Money
> should be spent for 3rd party validation with the help of the most tech
> trained Senior Case Supervisor who really knows what he's doing in order to
> finally scientifically validate the techniqes of scientology. The results
> should be made public.
That part I agree: but that step should be done before, not after your attempts to reform scientology techniques or to reform people (innocent ones) with scieno techs.

roger

From: "Safe ... www.fza.org" <Safe@scientology.at>
Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 00:22:25 -0800
Message-ID: <3859f205.0@news2.lightlink.com>
I don't feel I have to get a doctors' degree in order to have an intellegent opinion. Even if I did follow your suggestion doing this first, where is the course that teaches comparative mental health technologies which unbiasly include scientology.

There isn't one. Why? Because I don't believe that scientology tech has been fairly evaluated or considered. Of course, I don't blame anybody else for that but the Church of Scientology, Inc.

What suggestions to you have then for Bob? You criticized me enough. Now lets hear some of your own workable ideas and solutions. That's what Bob's asking. What can you realistically offer that church members will want to go TO?

Safe

From: jimdbb@aol.com (JimDBB)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Date: 17 Dec 1999 06:18:19 GMT
Message-ID: <19991217011819.14026.00001870@ng-fw1.aol.com>
>Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
>From: "Safe ... www.fza.org" Safe@scientology.at
>JimDBB" <jimdbb@aol.com>
>> The problem here is that there are no benefits from the practice of
>> scientology. there are a few good ideas on communication but beyond that it
>> is all L. Ron Hubbard psychobabble.
Safe wrote:

>I and thousands of good scientologists would take issue that there are "no
>benefits from the practice of scientology."
>
>The foundation of scientology is somebody taking a sincere interest in you
>and listening to you and to friendly direct questions that help you sort out
>your upsets and confusions about your life.
>
>This is the practice of the auditor. I admire sincere auditors (or any talk
>therapist) who is trying to help somebody. IMHO, I think it is beneficial.
>
>Safe
I think, Safe, that there can be benefits from some of the lower levels of auding if they are done without the hypnotic TRs and without and away from Hubbard's babble. As Keith points out though, much of the benefits from scientology are self perceived and this self perception is helped along by the blatant hypnosis which is constantly induced with the hypnotic TRs drills.

The clever use of hypnosis is a major factor in the scientology mind control system and this very much depends on the constant-daily practice of the TRs which are used in tandem with the constant barrage of psychobabble from Hubbard via the tapes, course packs, bulletins etc. Many scientologists have had the experience fo being away from scientology for awhile and have noticed the hypnotic effect wearing off. And this has led to many leaving this cult.

The hypnotic TRs are, of course, part and parcel of the auditing tech. Further along in the auditing process, the false -repressed memory syndrome will kick in and is very much helped along with Hubbard's bable and programming. Soon the auditee will be happily concocting bizarre 'past life' memories from millions of lifetimes. This is quite similar to what took place with weird 'satanic memories' that swept through the psychotherapy world and is going on in 'alien abduction regression' circles.

I made a study of reincarnation, past lives etc. via a number of books and other methodologies that are out there. This took place as I was leaving scientology and I was puzzled by the fact that no one in other past life methodologies ever came up with the bizarre, space opera past life memories that scientologists were coming up with. The answer to this, of course, is that scientologists are programmed and hypnotized to come up with them. L. Ron Hubbard came up with past lives in Doll bodies on other planets and it is expected of scientologists to do so. There are special rundowns for people who don't come up with past life recalls.

I think that it is obvious that there are no benefits from auditing false memories except the delusion of self perceived ones.

So just how effective are scientology practices away from the hypnotic programming? Is inducing a false memory and then 'auditing' out the trauma from it a benefit?

Let's take a look at the 'Freezone' wherein former scientologists are still trying to make the 'Tech' work. But away from the hypnosis and programming, it doesn't work. But for the most part they are sincere and not engaging in fraud and coercion and so have a right to pursue this interest. There are many other therapies in the 'alternative-holistic' arena that don't work either.

I don't think that this cult can be 'reformed'. Disarm it, revoke the tax-exempt status, make restitution to everyone abused and defrauded by the scientology hierarchy and prosecute those who were engaged in fraudulent and criminal activities. And provide counseling for those who want to leave.

Whatever remains, I suppose, can drift off as another 'alternative' therapy.

JImDBB

From: "Alec" <jeaux@netzero.net>
Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:46:10 -0600
Message-ID: <3859a3e2.0@news2.lightlink.com>
Bob, if you're anything like me you don't see any beneficial aspects (although I have to say they have a good psychotherapy, NED--not a religion though). So "Perceived" beneficial aspects is the key word. I've always had the feeling that you were taking up the responsibility of a concerned citizen trying to stop the deception and fraud. Of course they have the right, without deceiving or swindling, to believe any ludicrous thing. I think that YOUR focus would rightfully be an end to the deception and fraud by helping those members of LM Trust who DO see some degree of beneficial aspect, and would like to limit the offensive church to practicing THAT without harming others. In other words, that question should be delegated to your partners who are actual victims of Scientology who are sensitive to allowing the first amendment be applied to COS.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure Stacy, or Gerry, or Jesse, or any other partner believes in any beneficience from COS.

Perhaps instead of trying to fake some belief in beneficience, which might backfire, you should concentrate on your role of policing their injurious, harmful, deceptive, destructive tendencies and activities against mankind. This could be a loaded question the cult lawyers are asking you. (e.g., "Give us an example, Mr. Minton, of what you consider a beneficial aspect of Scientology"... See? They'd have you gagged.)

>The question should either be answered from the perspective of a
>"fixer" of the existing Church of Scientology or from the viewpoint
>of a new church to be called either the Reformed Church of Scientology or
>the Orthodox Church of Scientology depending on your view of the current
>scene.
>
>I'm curious to know from real Scientologists what Scientology without the
>abuse and deception would look like? I think it would be beneficial for all
>concerned if we started a dialogue on this topic in this public forum. I
>think it would be fair to say that we would all welcome input from
>representatives of Scientology, Inc.
Ok, here are my, er... actually 70 cents or more. First Scientology should be ordered to include [Surgeon General's] reports on their packageing, telling of Hubbard's past that contradicts his spirituality, i.e., his sex rituals, his absconding with the high magician's yacht and his girlfriend and his money, His fucked Naval career, his college grades deception, the invention of the 'holy' volconoes--that weren't extant at the time of his claimed interplanetary cremations, challenge the COS to get some archaeologist to unearth a DC-8 of (circa) 75 million years ago vintage. In particular they should point out their past deception that they are in any way supportive of Christianity.

They should be required to demonstrate that Hubbard felt it was legitimate to "threaten others' eternity" for non-compliance, (p 155-156, Intro to Scn Ethics)--and that they actually do carry-through with that by threats for non-compliance, and through stalking ostracism to guide waywards back into obedience.

It should be pointed out that their Ethics includes a favoritism of Scienos over wogs--Scienos being more apt to fit Ethical definition than do wogs.

This indemnifies Scienos while it incriminates wogs.

And, depending on the gender preponderance of the jury, you could effectively demonstrate that Scientologists fuck their mothers--( see Random House definition of "mother fucker"). Uhmm... Naaaahhh!

If you want something that you can seriously get impressed about, get a freezoner to audit you with strict NED. It's a very good psychotherapy--although Salvation's gonna evade you if that's your only "IN"

to eternity.

They should be required to honor the anti-stalking laws.

The truth is it's just not a religion. It's a totalitarian form of government with enforced psychotherapy required for citizenship.

And you could just be very gracious about letting them practice as a religion inspite of this--if they would just behave themselves in public--AND RETURN ANY MONEY THEY HAVE STOLEN OR EXTORTED!.

>Everyone should feel free to put your two cents wort end on this important
>discussion.
>
>Bob Minton
David Alexander

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 07:45:59 -0500
From: "M. C. DiPietra" <mdipietra@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Message-ID: <385a30af.0@news2.lightlink.com>
Bob doesn't have to see anything beneficial in Scientology; it's important enough that he recognize that some others currently do. I believe JimDBB is correct that the deception, etc. is pretty much built into the tech. It will be hard to "reform" the tech. The early parts of the tech, the ones the public sees first, have some merit (certainly not 100%), but I would argue can be found elsewhere and are not unique to Scientology.

I also would stress that if Scn truly wants to reform, it needs to stop charging money. Period. If people find benefit, let them tithe the way they do at any other church. If the tech is really making someone more able, they can tithe. That way the tech will not be unavailable to anyone, and the planet would be cleared much more quickly, if that is truly the goal. I'd say the Doctrine of Exchange is one of the bad parts of the tech, because it is certainly not accurate or universal.

If free courses sticks too much in Scn's craw (just think of all the money saved from no lawsuits--how much does any org need for some decent staff pay, overhead, and a REASONABLY PRICED e-meter?) then why not only pay for courses that really work for you? Why not be given the opportunity to evaluate and discuss if you are getting the results you are expected to pay for?

Also, any reform of Scn would need to address the concept of doing public good as a church, not as a PR stunt, not as individual actions of good-hearted people, but as a CHURCH. It needs to address how you treat children, older people and the infirm (and throwing them away doesn't count) because that is a central role of CHURCHES; it needs to have an cosmology that is accessible from day one, it needs to get rid of the TRs that perpetuate dependence.

There is great disparity between the Code and Creed of Scn and the policy letters, TR results, and practices. It will take a lot to determine where the breaches occur; some are not as obvious as others.

--- http://maggiecouncil.iuma.com M.C.DiPietra <mdipietra@earthlink.net>, SP4 "Hell, if you understood everything I say, you'd be me!" -Miles Davis

Message-ID: <3859B77B.9885B9EB@netscape.net>
From: ThomLove <thomlovenetmail@netscape.net>
Organization: Toast and Peanut Butter with Milk Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 04:05:14 GMT
Hello Bob;

First, I think it is necessary to understand the 'think' behind the statement about trying to destroy the CofS by reforming it. This is exactly true from the view of the SO Arrogants who run the show. In order for the CofS to be reformed, those individuals would have to be removed from the scene, and the structures that support them would have to be eliminated. This means that the core of the entire system, the SO would have to go, and THAT would be the destruction of the whole thing.

So, in a way they are right. There is no possibility of any reform in the CofS as long as the SO Arrogants and the SO remain in control. And they won't relinquish power without being forced out by the courts.

The only way I can see them being removed is via a RICO operation, or by such huge losses in suits that they go broke and are forced by law to change things.

So, the CofS cannot be reformed and still remain the CofS. That can't happen.

This leaves only one real viable alternative, a new organization. This new organization can come about only when the old one is gone. This new organization would need to have the LRH tech, policy etc., available to it by some legal means.

How a new organization would come about is unclear. (play on words).

I suspect that the government after a RICO and the jailing of most SO members and a significant number of Scientologists, would probably seize the copyrights as an asset, and make them public. That is one way.

The present buildings and staff could just swear off the SO, and start to deliver services independent of the SO, but his would only occur after the SO was gutted in some way, and could no longer be a threat.

That is how I view it.

I have a question. I presume you are tracking with the Berry/Cipriano declarations and such. Are you in any position to help them bring those declarations into a court room? It seems to me that if what Cipriano is saying is true, the FBI and IRS would be very interested. Same with the UK tax evasion posts put up by Roland. These type of hits, if true, would bring about the 'reform' that you seem to be advocating in the fastest possible manner.

It seems to me that using these declarations in a court could really hit home. As one individual said in the NEW TIMES, the Cipriano declaration could be fatal stab in the heart for Scientology.

As a Scientologist for nearly 30 years, I would be so happy to see the SO Arrogants brought down, and the honest brought back up. The CofS used to be a real fine and free place to be.

Thanks for all your assistance. You sure take it on the chin from time to time, don't you!

ThomLove

From: "roger gonnet" <secticide@worldnet.fr>
Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:08:38 +0100
Message-ID: <83cqvp$va5$3@news6.isdnet.net>
ThomLove <thomlovenetmail@netscape.net> a écrit dans le message :

3859B77B.9885B9EB@netscape.net...

> Hello Bob;
>
> First, I think it is necessary to understand the 'think' behind the
> statement about trying to destroy the CofS by reforming it. This is
> exactly true from the view of the SO Arrogants who run the show. In
> order for the CofS to be reformed, those individuals would have to be
> removed from the scene, and the structures that support them would have
> to be eliminated. This means that the core of the entire system, the SO
> would have to go, and THAT would be the destruction of the whole thing.
>
> So, in a way they are right. There is no possibility of any reform in
> the CofS as long as the SO Arrogants and the SO remain in control. And
> they won't relinquish power without being forced out by the courts.
>
> The only way I can see them being removed is via a RICO operation, or by
> such huge losses in suits that they go broke and are forced by law to
> change things.
>
> So, the CofS cannot be reformed and still remain the CofS. That can't
> happen.
>
> This leaves only one real viable alternative, a new organization. This
> new organization can come about only when the old one is gone. This new
> organization would need to have the LRH tech, policy etc., available to
> it by some legal means.
>
> How a new organization would come about is unclear. (play on words).
>
> I suspect that the government after a RICO and the jailing of most SO
> members and a significant number of Scientologists, would probably seize
> the copyrights as an asset, and make them public. That is one way.
>
> The present buildings and staff could just swear off the SO, and start
> to deliver services independent of the SO, but his would only occur
> after the SO was gutted in some way, and could no longer be a threat.
Really, I'm agreeing with this as a whole.

Saying to the Courts that we don't try to destroy scientology *such as it is* would be a lie. I want to destroy scientology as it is, to the point of total obliteration. Even its name should be forgotten after this; as it bears so many bad things and image.

What I could support, is the idea that **some parts of elrong's techniques can be reformatted and checked**, because he had a big head and many ideas that had not been always explored; but that should be always done under complete scientific watch before being used really by people. Scientology has a 99 % total failures, as some 1% of the people having taken any single or multiple services are gone, days, weeks, or months or years later.

Sometimes even 25 years later. This shows that scientology is a failure. The why should first be found: why is scientology such a failure? (I would pretend to know, bnut many others have also their opinions on this).

Just an argument more: would scientology be efficient if it was not served or delivered under such parades and assertions of power, make-believe? I think definitely NO, but some few parts.

And we should never forget that first scientology pretends to be a science, not a religion. Religion is part of the parade.

roger

From: yertletheturtle@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:49:54 GMT
Message-ID: <83dpjg$vk8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Bob, thank you for considering reform as an option. It is unfortunate, as some suggest that the current organization will have to be forcefully dismantled before serious reform is considered. It is even more unfortuntae that the financial resources accumulated through years of hard work within scientology cannot go to more positive use such as continued research, or making auditing more readily available to those who want it. It will be truly unfortunate it the organization must be bankrupted to achieve real lasting change.

by the way, what is a RICO operation.

I personally do agree that the current managment will have to be thrown out.

What I would like to see is someone with the financial clout of minton, or possibly groups like the Lisa mcpherson trust, is to actually intitiate and external reform movement. spent the money fighting the ridiculous copy-right control and make the information so publically available that the church would be hard-hit by open free competition.

Then, what works about scientology will persist, more research will occur, and the nonsense will fade out.

Message-ID: <385A7F1E.EAFC1E27@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:21:18 -0500
From: Ed <metasyn@aol.com>
Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
yertletheturtle@my-deja.com wrote:

> Bob,
>
> thank you for considering reform as an option. It is unfortunate, as
> some suggest that the current organization will have to be forcefully
> dismantled before serious reform is considered. It is even more
> unfortuntae that the financial resources accumulated through years of
> hard work within scientology cannot go to more positive use such as
> continued research, or making auditing more readily available to those
> who want it. It will be truly unfortunate it the organization must be
> bankrupted to achieve real lasting change.
>
It's a race. Either YOU and other people like you get out of fear and start communicating a lot more and faster and more urgently with your colleagues to get pressure for reform to build within the C of $ -- or there will be an ugly and disorderly result: government attacks, police actions, probably violent acts or even mass suicide by the hardest-core SO leadership.

YOU and the others don't need to depend on the church and ethics officers and all the other whole nine yeards for ANYTHING. That is just a thought. Just a silly little thought. You CAN stop thinking that thought. It doesn't need to be a piece of machinery programmed to operate forever; not if you choose to change that. In normal English the term is "changing one's mind". Scn has trained you to believe that changing one's mind is a very serious matter only to be done with permission of the organization. Is that slavery, or what? Don't you have some happier vision of your life's `purpose than to be a slave?

From: veracity@trial.freedom.net
Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 20:59:28 -0800
Message-ID: <s5jhkbqdqrs47@corp.supernews.com>
Bob, I agree with Thom Love that you have to consider the "think" behind this, and pretty much what he says about the Sea Org.

Key thing I think needed is to expose the fact that most of the actual orginal stuff (which is what the public thinks they are getting and aren't), is IN the public domain. This would pull the rug out from under them so to speak, as that is their "copyright terrorist" routine, and the lifeblood (money) of the organization. And then expose how they attempted to cover this up by altering in large or small ways 1900 out of 1955 copyrights of LRH's. "this would include the OT levels by the way, as they ARE in published HCOB form, I have seen it myself. So they can't say they are "unpublished". Thats what HCOB means, Hubbard Communications Office.....

(that's where mimeo that is supposed to run-off and distribute it is).

The public is NOT aware that they are being sold altered, or non-LRH materials, and if it was proved that they are in the public domain, then anyone could form a group, Church or whatever.

I think Miscaviage is deathly afraid of Scientologists being able to practice Scientology without him, it shows him to be the nothing he is. He vampires off the backs of good-hearted, well-intentioned people (for the most part), and portrays himself as the "savior" from all the "EVIL" Sp's like you. Course when anyone finds out he is the one that is the "EVIL" sp, out comes the SO SS to "handle" you. If there is one thing I would ask you to read in Scientology, to understand Miscaviage, read the HCOB The Criminal Mind. It might have been made for him.

Example: Church lawyers accuse Lisa Mcpherson estate of forgery, what does Miscaviage know how to do? Anyone?? Forge LRH's signature. And I'm sure he learned how in order to never use that ability, RRRRight....

Example:Miscaviage/RTC et al accuses anyone at the drop of a hat of "copyright and trademark infringement". What's miscaviage do? A massive cover-up of the fact that the copyrights are public domain, alteration of the material that CST is "sworn to protect and keep pure", fraud perpetrated on the US government copyright office, and lest us not forget, selling this bungled up mess to the public as "pure, unadulterated LRH" Again, RRRRight....

Getting the idea now?

Ok let's take this recent accusation "you are trying to DESTROY the church of scientology by REFORMING it. Hmmmmm, you know that had to be a Miscaviage approved idea. So Class, what does this tell us Miscaviage is doing??

Destroying the Church by Reforming it to HIS STYLE OF THINKING. (which is of course, superior to LRH) Anyone trying to put it back the original way LRH had it (and critics it was NOTHING like it is now), is of course trying to REFORM the Church away from him.

So, I say, hell with it, just prove the copyrights and take it right out from under him. Noone really likes him that much anyway, and the ones that do, can have him.

Anyway, much as I love baring Miscaviage to the world, onto more theta things.

Most of what Safe says I agree with, although I, myself am not interested in developing the science further until I have a chance to actually try it in its unadulterated form, but I have no problem with someone that does, more power to them. I agree that there should be competition, and the proof is in the pudding so to speak, so whoever is producing good products, will succeed well. (and of course is not doing bizarre criminal activities like now) I believe a thorough search of the original works of LRH would reveal that most of the abhorrent to the world policies, etc, are either not his anyway, or were never intended to be long term "solutions", so should be jettisoned.(he even has policies that cover this very scenario) After all, purpose is senior to policy, and tech is senior to policy. If policy is getting in the road, get rid of it, and that is per LRH. (not an exact quote).

I would like to see a lot of stuff jettisoned by the above methods of determination.

Even if Scientology does not believe in Christianity, which it doesn't obviously, it should be open to anyone, and live and let live. The Creed of the Church should actually be lived, instead of mouthed.

A new organization such as "The Orthodox Church of Scientology" could definitely do such a thing, but it should be made safe for it to operate, first. (copyrights-which how can it hope to compete if it cannot use the stuff openly) I have more ideas on what is supposed to be happening in the act of being a scientologist, but I need to take some more time on this.

Hey, I just realised, all the protesting by critics about the confidentiality of the Upper levels..... The rules governing this are pretty old Policies. The purpose of which was to "prevent" it getting in the wrong hands. Well, that's already happened, so maybe it's not necessary anymore.

Plus the main reason was it being used to hurt other people or implant them, and the CIA already has it, so what is being protected?

Anyway, hopefully this is of help, and will get you started.

Are you helping to start a new Church? Just curious.

Veracity

Message-ID: <385A49AC.83545E8D@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:33:17 -0500
From: Ed <metasyn@aol.com>
Subject: Re: A question for reformers of Scientology
Thoughts on reform: first, "Pilot" has put forth very well the main ideas which existing Scientologists need to look at, in the website www.fza.org.

The following is something I started writing up a couple of months ago. It has some radical starting point ideas that should see the daylight now....

Ed --------------- Now that the demise of the "Church" is approaching, here are some thoughts for the endgame. The acceleration of the endgame can be picked up with an ARSCC Shadow OSA program, but my gut feeling is events are moving so fast now that we don't need to fight the OSA now as much as we need to prepare the groundwork for the endgame.

We should begin having the idea that collapse of the C of S is not only inevitable, but will happen sooner than many people expect, and that if we believe that and act as if that is the case, our intent will make it happen. We should not be creating a reality that we are expecting a long, slow, difficult struggle. Indeed, nearly everyone involved except a small number of top C of S management would welcome a "reform"

settlement.

The desired result at the end includes:

1) End of all abusive and totalitarian policies and practices of the C of S now and forevermore.

2) Reorganization of C of S with totally new management and purposes.

3) Settlement to satisfaction of numerous legal and moral claims as detailed below.

4) Criminal prosecution and justice for all past crimes, with new management cooperating in the justice procedure.

5) Seizure of all C of S assets worldwide, receivership to be arranged, and finances used to settle numerous types of claims as below.

6) New Scientology leadership agrees to claim no monopoly to license the use of LRH tech. How they handle the use of trademarks, copyrights, etc., to be worked out with "free zone"

to mutual agreement.

7) Scientologists of any faction are free to practice auditing and training free of government regulation to the same degree that mainstream or alternative psychotherapies are. In general, that means no licensing.

8) Scientologists may choose in each country whether to organize as a religion and seek tax-exempt status or not, with no international uniformity required.

9) Scientologists in each country agree to follow the applicable tax laws without any policy, either public or secret, to break the rules.

10) Scientology's new management publicly repudiates many, many policies and practices that LRH called for which in the past resulted in attacks by governments and other enemies.

11) Governments and the various other "enemies" publicly forswear any hostility towards Scientology under new leadership, providing it follows the laws and the spirit of this agreement.

12) All Scientologists have the option of taking possession of their auditing folders, ethics files, and any other similar properties.

13) The existing computer databases within the Scientology organizations are examined by outsiders and modified in such a way as to render impossible the abusive use of personal information in them. (Maybe they should be destroyed completely?) 14) The agreement, or settlement, described here, is arrived at in a positive way. The existing public Scientologists in LA and Clearwater should be brought in, so they can see that they will benefit and not feel under severe attack. This is vital!

------------------------------------- We would like to have a non-violent, agreed-upon settlement including all the following points as a minimum beginning point:

On one side, all the national governments involved in actions against Scientology will drop them, except as provided in the next paragraph. In return, control of the C of S, including specifically CST or whoever owns Hubbard's copyrights will be placed in a board of trustees, fairly representing present and former members, the Hubbard family, the interests of the claimants listed below (including Scientology's opponents) and government.

Individuals in C of S executive positions, C of S lawyers and other individuals or companies operating at the behest of the C of S are subject to any criminal charges that may apply as to their past actions.

All worldwide C of S bank accounts and financial assets are frozen in escrow in the countries those assets are located in.

In each country this is overseen by a committee of government representatives, the financial institutions concerned, C of S representatives, and representatives of former staff members of C of S. (Details on this to be worked out, as well as the international coordination.)

All physical assets of the C of S are frozen as to ownership and location. Specifically, all files, documents, pc folders, computer systems and so on stay right where they are.

The property near Trementina, New Mexico, owned by the C of S with its underground vaults, specifically will be monitored to see that nothing is removed.

The committees of the various representatives of interests immediately examine closely every building owned by the C of S for evidence of violations of the law. Specifically, if necessary, they are to examine and take control of child care facilities and RPF units and see to it that any abusive conditions cease. In the case of RPF units, all the members are to be briefed on the details of this settlement. They are free to leave the RPF and the SO if they choose. They are entitled to any needed medical or dental services, etc., and payments for years of past service, as detailed below.

The copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property rights and licenses derived from them, pertaining to C of S or L Ron Hubbard are frozen in their current status until a comprehensive restructuring of the corporate structure of C of S entities is completed, as agreed to by all the interests involved. (Church members, former members, US government, other governments, and the Hubbard family.) It may well be that the future status of control of the copyrights will depend on the progress of existing litigation.

It is agreed that all staff members and Sea Org members are free to terminate their contracts at any time if they wish, and no ethics penalties will be imposed. All staff members, SO members, and public are notified immediately of this settlement and a URL where they can read it.

It is intended that beginning as soon as possible, with details of implementation to be worked out, that any staff or SO members will be allowed medical and dental treatments or any similar needed services. These will be paid for from C of S finances, immediately and generously.

It is intended that every SO member will be paid, as soon as practicable, $10,000 for their first year plus $5000 for each past year in SO service in which they were paid the normal minimal SO allowance. Registrars or others who received bonuses based on Gross Income are not included. (Perhaps these amounts would be changed, and other details need to be arranged.)

SO members who wish it can have travel paid for from the C of S finances, to go anywhere they wish for as long as they want to.

Non-SO staff from orgs and missions are eligible for similar payments for past service, with the amounts to be determined.

OSA staff get a similar benefit only by requesting it of a committee (to be convened) that will oversee the dissolution of OSA, and only if that committee considers them not to have done or overseen criminal activities.

There is a temporary closing of every organization until, for each one, a supervising group composed of present and former staff, their lawyers, and representatives of government work out an arrangement to protect the integrity of all files, documents, pc folders, computers, etc. Until that is completed, no one is allowed inside.

It is intended that the C of S financial assets will be used to satisfy all of the following claims as soon as practicable.

There should be ample resources.

1) Payments for past service to staff and SO members as described above.

2) Payments for immediate medical, dental and similar needs for SO staff.

3) Payments for SO members' travel to anywhere, as above.

4) Payments for all claims for refunds of advanced payments for services by public. The C of S agrees to waive any ethics penalties in these cases.

5) Payments for any claims for refunds of money paid for services already delivered.

6) Payments to settle present and past legal cases and court judgments, as described below.

7) Payments for routine utility and phone bills, rent, etc.

Settlement of legal cases. This includes these provisions.

1) Recognizing that "fair game" tactics used by the C of S are immoral and often illegal, anyone who has been victimized by them in the past may make a claim for related damages. The details of this will have to be worked out, but a panel with representatives of the various interests will examine and rule on these cases. It is presumed that claimants could get judgments for their actual damages plus interest, and some degree of punitive award as well, with an agreed upon limit to punitive damages.

2) Recognizing the degree of "fair game" pressure used against past litigants, it will be allowed that past litigants who have settled with the C of S, including those who have agreed to silence as to that fact, will be allowed to make new claims for "fair game" damages as above. Note that both these classes of fair game claims and their settlements will be resolved and agreed upon as an extrajudicial proceeding, and there will be no rights to relitigate them in court.

3) All current litigants against the C of S will be encouraged to voluntarily package their claims along with the "fair game"

claims above and to settle for judgment of actual damages, court costs, interest, limited punitive damages, etc.

4) The intention here is to settle generously all the past and present litigation as well as new "fair game" claims fairly rapidly, with a time limit for new claims. The intent is to be done, the claims settled and paid. It seems reasonable that the C of S has the assets to do so and benefits from being done with these cases.

Additional remarks:

1) It is very much in the interest of current staff and SO members to cooperate with the authorities in helping to locate all the bank accounts and financial assets, wherever they may be, so as to maximize the amount of money that can be used for their benefit, as opposed to the enrichment of a corrupt few in top management and their lawyers.

2) It is obvious that there will be a large-scale reevaluation of many beliefs and practices by many people. It is obvious that when Scientology begins a new life after the reorganization, they will not use the heavy sales pressure tactics, their prices will be much lower, and they will not have to support a huge dead weight of people in unproductive management organizations. The authoritarian command system will be shattered. Why? Because there will be a free market with various "free zone" practitioners and groups competing. Public Scientologists will suddenly feel great relief as the relentless pressure on them to donate money to the C of S will stop.

3) After the reorganization, it seems to be an open question as to whether Scientology is a church or not. It is quite possible that a majority of members would prefer to think of it not as a church, but as non-religious methodology comparable to mainstream or alternative psychotherapies. In reality Scientology does not resemble religions in that it doesn't have much to say about God or prayer or religious services or rituals or rules for living. With the end of the criminal management as well as enemies hostile to the C of S practices of the past, it could be possible for the members remaining to be able to decide what their movement is about in a calm and reasonable manner.

----------- [end]