(john d.) wrote:
>I already did research them. Wollersheim v. CoS contained >sufficient information to support my claim. The Ballard case >is over 20 years old. You know that, but you'll lie about it >continually, because you're a dishonest person. Tilman >provided insufficent information to get the Armstrong case, >because he, like you, is basically dishonest.Breckenridge decision:
Defendant was told by Scientology to get an attorney. He was declared an enemy by the Church. He believed, reasonably, that he was subject to "fair game." The only way he could defend himself, his integrity, and his wife was to take that which was available to him and place it in a safe harbor, to wit, his lawyer's custody. He may have indulged in overkill, in the sense that he took voluminous materials, some of which appear only marginally relevant to his defense. But he was not lawyer and cannot be held to that precise standard of judgment. Further , at the time that he was accumulating the material, he was terrified and undergoing severe emotional turmoil. The court is satisfied that he did not unreasonably intrude upon Mrs. Hubbard's privacy under the circumstances by in effect simply making his knowledge that of his attorneys. It is of course, rather ironic that the person who authorized G.O. 121669 should complain about invasion of privacy. The practice of culling supposedly confidential "P.C. folders or files" to obtain information for purposes of intimidation and or harassment is repugnant was no respector of anyone's civil rights, particularly that of privacy. Plaintiff Mary Sue Hubbard's cause of action for conversion must fail for the same reason as plaintiff Church. The documents were all together in Omar Garrison's possession. There was no way the defendant could make any distinction.
Commencing in February 1982, the international Church of Scientology issued a series of "suppressive person declares" in effect labeling Armstrong an enemy of the Church and charging that he had taken an unauthorized leave, was spreading destructive rumors about senior Church officials, and secretly planned to leave the Church. These "declares" subjected Armstrong to the "Fair Game Doctrine" of the Church, which permits a suppressive person to be "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed ... [or] deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist...."
There is substantial evidence Wollersheim divulged private
information during auditing sessions under an explicit or
implicit promise the information would remain confidential.
Moreover, there is substantial evidence Scientology leaders and
employees shared this confidential information and used it to
plan and implement a "fair game" campaign against Wollersheim.
Appellant argues these "fair game" practices are protected religious expression. They cite to a recent Ninth Circuit case
(The word "fair game" can be found twenty-five (25) times in that court decision, you stupid troll).
They are evidence supporting the assertion that fair game is still in force.
But for judicial opinions, go to the unpublished appellate decision in Yanny I handed down in perhaps 1994. Also the Wollersheim SLAPP opinion published in perhaps 1996. The Armstrong appellate opinion was published in 1991.
Then add the black PR published to this minute by cult operatives, some of whom show up on ars, and add the known suppressive acts against targeted critics. These things are all supportive of the fact that fair game is alive and still the senior policy of the scientology cult.
The scienoagent here is playing games with words. Fair game has never stopped, because without it scientology would not be scientology. Scientology = fair game.
I would bet that the judge in Riverside in the Henson TRO hearing accepted the fact that fair game exists, is scientology's practice and that Keith is its target.
I would bet that what Scientology has done to me alone from 1982 up to this moment is more than enough proof that fair game exists and is the cult's policy and practice. I would bet that any jury of twelve honest people in this country when presented with the facts demonstrating fair game's existence would be as shocked as the jury in Wollersheim I in 1986, and would compensate another fair game target accordingly.
Scientology will do whatever it can to prevent any jury from ever hearing about its fair game nastiness. It will not be successful. The world will hear about fair game until the cult does what it must do: completely and honestly repudiate and eradicate fair game. Not deny its existence while continuing its practice. Repudiate and eradicate it.
Fair game as words and practice, to my knowledge, first appeared in the US judicial record in the Allard case. Scientology did not learn from that condemnation, did not repudiate and cease fair game, but denied and continued the practice. That error of arrogance led to the Armstrong and Wollersheim decisions also condemning fair game. The same choice still confronts the scieno cultmasters: repudiate and eradicate fair game or continue its evil. But do not waste time trying to get the reasonably aware to believe that fair game doesn't exist.
john d. wrote:
>So that court case, and each previous court case, >can be cited as proof that fair game was used at those times. >None of them individually nor collectively constitute proof >that fair game is still in force.So I could prove that "fair game" is active today, and tomorrow you'd say "hey, you only proved it for yesterday".
Kind of like the UFOlogists "ok, that foto was a fraud, but here is an UFO foto that isn't one, so UFOs do exist".
In other words, per your troll logic, it is *impossible* to prove that fair game is currently in force - as you'd need a court case, which takes years, etc, would prove it only for the past.
We do not need court cases. We'd just look at Keith Henson, Grady Ward, Dennis Erlich and Lawrence Wollersheim to see that it is in force right now.
john d. wrote:
> You're the one who continually ignores the basic point that > is being argued.No, you are. Fair game supposedly is no longer extent after October 1968 according to official cult lies. Not so. Several court cases AFTER that date establish it was indeed an official policy used on people!
That is THE main point! What Hubbard REALLY said in the October 21 1968 HCOPL "Cancellation of Fair Game" is that the words fiar game are not to be used on ethics orders but that teh policy on handling or treating SP does not change!
And so it was.
You are stupid. This gets pointed out REPEATEDLY and you still refuse to engage your brain.
The policy was made in the Conditions HCOPLE issue of October 18, 1967. The "cancellation" HCOPL of October 21 1968 pointedly states that the handling and treatment of SP was not changed. People were fair gamed as per policy. Several courts so found that as a matter of legal fact, fair game was an active policy pursued by the cult. End of argument. You lost.
Anything else from you is a display of lack of intelligence.
> You made the claim that several court decisions establish > that fair game is still in force. Wallersheim v. CoS reads > as follows: "Evidence was introduced that, at least during > the time relevant to Wallersheim's case, "fair game" was a > practice..."Duhhhhhhhhhh! You are not very bright, are you?! We SEE that fair game is in use TO THIS DAY. The cult hires David Lee, PI to fair game and harass them. We don't need a court to see that fair game is in use right now, today.
Word check obnosis in Hubbard's technical dictionary. It means, noticing the obvious. Something beyond your meager intellect.
>Again, you're avoiding the main point of this argument, >which is your claim that there are several court cases >which prove that fair game is still in force.It was in force when teh court cases came to court. What the cult KNOWINGLY AND REPEATEDLY LIES about, is that the policy was cancelled in 1968. it is a knowing lie on teh part of Scientology.
The court cases establish that indeed, fair game was NOT ended in October 21, 1968.
That IS what the argument is about! This lie that October 21, 1968's HCOPL ended the practice. One more time since your teeny, tiny, almost useless brain does not seem to work well, Hubbard pintedly stated that teh policy of 1967 of fair game was not ended, Hubbard stating, "..this P/L does not change any policy on the handling or treatment of an SP".
Now, my next point which you have never even bothered to acknowledge much less answer. If any HCOPL or HCOB is not cancelled or modified in writing, then by senior Scientology policy, that policy remains in force.
So we have....
Either you are a liar, or you are brain damaged.
And my challenge one more time. Show us when the HCOPL October 18, 1967 was in writing, modified or ended. If and HCOPL is not so modified or stopped in writing, ofiicial, in a well distributed manner, according to Scientology's rules, it is in force.
If fair game was dropped, show us when and where. Cite HCOPL or HCOB and dates times, and what volume of the OEC this can be found.
Burden of proof is now firmly on your shoulders. Such an HCOPL or HCOB ending fair game specifically is teh only thing that counts at all from here on out, except for the ugly fact fair game is obviously still in use as we can see from the fact that the Youngs, Henson and others are actively being fair gamed right now by your hate cult.
Produce the HCOPL or HCOB that officially ended fair game. If such does not exist, fair game is Scientology policy. And you can bet this WILL be explored in a court of law in the not to distant future when the cult liars start lying about this very fact.
SubGenius Pope Of Houston