Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (2016-19) (9)  or      Are we being properly (mis)informed or not? (Review of TV show that ran 3 seasons. Hosts: Leah Remini and Mike Rinder)

(to other Scientology pages)

1) G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w / i n t r o d u c t i o n :   M i s s i o n   s t a t e m e n t ,   o v e r v i e w ,   r e s e a r c h   s p e c i f i c s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   L R H K e e p i n g   S c i e n t o l o g y   W o r k i n g ,   f u n d a m en t al s S c i e n t o l o g y   i n   m e d i a   a nd   I n t e r n e t   ( +   f o r u m s ,   W i k i p e d i a ) S c i e n t o l o g y :   I t s   t r u e   h i s t o r y   e x p o s e d ? S c i e n t o l o g y   Q & A   ( F A Q ) E x t e r n a l   l i n k s M a t e r i a l s   w a n t   l i s t R e c o m m e n d e d   l i s t   o f   m a t e r i a l s 2) R e s p o n s e s   ( w i t h   a n n o t a t i o n s ) : A p p r e c i a t i v e   r e s p o n s e s   t o   m y   p a g e s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 1 )   f r o m   c h u r c h g o i n g   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 2 )   f r o m   o u t - o f - c h u r c h   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d    ( 3 )   f r o m   a n t i - S c i e n t o l o g i s t s 3) T o p i c s   o f   p a r t i c u l a r   i n t e r e s t : (a): G e n e r a l   t o p i c s H o l y   S c r i p t u r e s   v s   S c i e n t o l o g y L R H   v s   D i c t i o n a r i e s L R H   v s   t h e o r y   o f   e v o l u t i o n L R H ' s   w o r k s   o f   f i c t i o n (b): O r g a n i z a t i o n a l   t o p i c s A   p r i n t i n g   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   m a t e r i a l s   o f   S c i e n t o l o g y S c i e n t o l o g y   M e m b e r s h i p :   H A S I   v s   I A S L R H   v s   p r i c i n g   p o l i c i e s T h e   c o p y r i g h t s   i s s u e   a n d   l i c e n s i n g (c): T e c h n i c a l   t o p i c s H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   a )   G e n e r a l H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   b )   D e t a i l e d ‘ C l e a r ’   d e f i n e d N E D   f o r   O T s T h e   ‘ P r i m a r y   R u n d o w n ’ 4) C o n t r o v e r s i a l   t o p i c s : M i s t a k e n   i d e a s   o f   ‘ E t h i c s ’   c l a r i f i e d T h e   F a i r    G a m e   L a w P r a c t i c e   o f   D i s c o n n e c t i o n S e c u r i t y   C h e c k i n g F r e e l o a d e r s   v s   E x - s t a f f   m e m b e r s T h e   ‘ R e h a b i l i t a t i o n   P r o j e c t   F o r c e ’   ( R P F ) 5) C h a n g e s   i n   t h e   f l o w   o f   ‘ i n f o r m a t i o n ’: (a): A l t e r a t i o n s   ( L R H   o r   n o n- L R H ? ) L R H   v s   A l t e r a t i o n s N o n - L R H   t u r n s   i n t o   L R H ?   &   P r o p o s a l   t o   s o l u t i o n T h e    ‘ C r a m m i n g   S e r i e s ’   -   L R H   o r   n o t   L R H ? B a s e d   o n   L R H   p u b l i c a t i o n s (b): G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w L R H   v s   A   N e w   O r d e r   ( i n t r o d u c t i o n ) → A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   a n d    o r g a n i z a t i o n a l   m a t t e r s S e t u p   o f   t h e   p r i n t e d   m a t e r i a l s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 ) T h e   R T R C ,   t h e   u n i t   t h a t   w r o t e   L R H   i s s u e s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 2 ) T h e   d a w n i n g   o f   R T C   a n d   n e w   m a n a g e m e n t   ( 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 ) → T e c h n i c a l   m a t t e r s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   t h e   e v e n t   o f   l o s i n g   a   B r i d g e ) A n a l y s i s   o f   H C O B   “ T e c h   C o r r e c t i o n   R o u n d - u p ” L o s t   B r i d g e :   T e c h   c h a n g e s   d u r i n g   1 9 7 8 - 8 2 T h e   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   o r i g i n a l   O T   V I I I ‘ G o l d e n   A g e   o f   T e c h ’   ( G A T )   a n a l y s i s D r i l l i n g   i n   S c i e n t o l o g y (c): T h e   m a t t e r   o f   D a v i d   M a y o S t o r y   o f   D a v i d   M a y o ‘ S O   E D   2 3 4 4   I n t’   a n a l y s i s T r a i n i n g   d r i l l s   ( T R s ) M a y o   r e f e r e n c e   l i s t 6) C o n s p i r a c i e s   -   I n   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ' s   f o o t s t e p s S c i e n t o l o g y   v s   a   N e w   W o r l d   O r d e r → W h e r e   i s   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ?   ( c h r o n o l o g y   o f   S c n   h i s t o r y ) W h e r e a b o u t s   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   c h r o n o l o g y T h e   e r a   o f   a d o r a t i o n ;   P r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   i n t o   a r t i s t r y :   M u s i c   &   F i l m → W h e r e   i s   h i s   w i f e   a n d   f a m i l y ? S t o r y   o f   M a r y   S u e   H u b b a r d T h e   l a s t   s t a n d :   T h e   G u a r d i a n   O f f i c e 7) S c i e n t o l o g y   u n d e r   a t t a c k (a): A   p r e m e d i t a t e d   s e r i e s   o f   o c c u r r e n c e s ?   ( ’ 8 0 s   c o n s p i r a c y ) I n t r o d u c t i o n   &   R o n   D e W o l f G e r r y   A r m s t r o n g   ( ‘ a f f i r m a t i o n s ’ ) R u s s e l l   M i l l e r    ( ‘ B a r e - F a c e d   M e s s i a h ’ ) A   r e l i g i o n   c r e a t e d   f o r   t h e   m o n e y ? (b): B a t t l e s   f o u g h t   a n d   t h e   i n t e r n e t   ( 2 0 1 6 -   ) L e a h   R e m i n i :   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   t h e   A f t e r m a t h   ( T V   s h o w )

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (2016-19)  (page 9)

Go to ‘Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (2016-19) ’ index

‘Buying a Town (Part 1)’  (s3e09 - 22 Jan 2019)
	[Wiki: In 1974, operating under an alias, the Church of Scientology moved into Clearwater, Florida, and proceeded to make the city its spiritual headquarters. In 1977, an FBI raid uncovered the Church's secret plans to take over the city. In this episode, Leah and Mike visit Clearwater and speak to some of the city's most prominent Scientology critics.]

• The Clearwater history (70s) (Incl. Arrival, storytelling à la Mike Rinder; Settling in Clearwater)
• Deliberate policy misdirections...
• The Clearwater history [cont'd] (80s)

At 0:04 Leah Remini: “Clearwater, Florida, is, like, the Mecca of Scientology. That is where Scientologists go to receive the upper-most coveted levels of Scientology. It is also the place where Scientology is almost achieving its goal of buying a town, make it a Scientology city, then use that as an example for the rest of the world.”

At 8:40 screen dump text: “Mike and Leah are speaking with prominent residents of Clearwater who have stood up against Scientology's presence in the city. - Denis de Fleming: Former President, Florida Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers - Betsy Steg: Pinellas County attorney; Magistrate, 6th Judicial Circuit of Florida - Mark Bunker: Journalist and filmmaker”

The Clearwater history (70s)  (Incl. Arrival, storytelling à la Mike Rinder; Settling in Clearwater)

At 8:50 Mike Rinder: “I don't think this story of Scientology in Clearwater has ever been actually told. Like, there's been bits and pieces, and certainly, the ‘Tampa Bay Times’ has covered it, but that's for people in Pinellas County. Outside, the whole world doesn't know.”

Follows the logical question, does the outside world need to know it?

	At 9:10: “In the early 70s, L. Ron Hubbard was running the Scientology world from a ship called ‘The Apollo’. I was on board ‘The Apollo’ with L. Ron Hubbard from 1973 until 1975. The ship had been thrown out of various countries. He tried to bring ‘The Apollo’ to the United States in 1974, and he discovered that the FBI, IRS, DEA, and various other government agencies were waiting on the dock.
	For the next year or so, we sailed around in ports in the Caribbean. Hubbard at one point had a heart attack in Curacao. The treatment wasn't the, like, advanced medical treatment available. And he decided, ‘Okay, the time has come to move the operations to the United States’.
	He sent a whole bunch of people out up and down the Eastern Seaboard of the US to find a location to move to. There were various requirements. It had to have an international airport. It had to be in a relatively warm climate. It had to be a facility that was big enough to accommodate all the people, but was cheap. Ultimately, he settled on Clearwater, Florida, and the Fort Harrison hotel, and the adjacent Clearwater Bank building, both of which were going bankrupt.”

A supposed “heart attack” was reason to move inland? Why was that a reason?

Mike Rinder really talks a lot about L. Ron Hubbard did this and decided that, and also single-handedly. Where is this proven involvement? Where does Mike Rinder get this from? He does not tell.

At 10:48: “When Hubbard moved the headquarters of Scientology to Clearwater, it logically followed that the plan would be to take over Clearwater and turn it into a Scientology city.”

How was it possible to establish Scientology on American soil if “the FBI, IRS, DEA, and various other government agencies were waiting on the dock” for him? Why was he not apprehended something? See, the magazine ‘Source 29’, [ca Oct 80] shows a photograph of “Ron present during the transfer from ship to shore” in Clearwater, late 1975.

So, what about “the FBI, IRS, DEA”, were they may be a bother no more? Mike Rinder makes no mention of this at all anymore, which is rather strange as that does not disappear just like that! This poses an insurmountable problem in Mike Rinder's storytelling! He is supposed to account for these things, that is if he wants to appear credible!

At 11:17 Mike Rinder: “Scientology moved in here in 1975, and at the outset, came here under false pretenses. When we arrived in Clearwater, we actually lied. Tried to pretend to everybody in the community that this was some other Christian organization called the United Churches of Florida.”

‘USB ED 23-1RA’, 8 Mar 76 “The Fort Harrison Hotel”, a Scientology release, actually tells it differently. This reference can be consulted in full here (pop-up window).

	“United Churches began as an idea over 5 years ago. Several parishioners and clergymen of different faiths (and members of the Church of Scientology) felt that an organization which would unite church efforts could bring about a revitalization of religious and social purposes.
	In 1975, that idea became a reality with the formation of United Churches of Florida, a non-profit corporation which believes that while maintaining individuality of belief, the binding together of Churches on their common purposes can bring about a society of higher spiritual values.”

A problem here is, who were these other churches. I don't find any mention of them made anywhere...

	“Mayor Gabriel Cazares minced no words Wednesday in his reaction to the announcement of the link between United Churches of the Florida and the Church of Scientology.
	‘This confirms what we suspected from the beginning – they did not level with us . . . they have misused our ministers, they have misled the public and they have evaded the truth,’ he said.” (from ‘Pinellas Times’, 29 Jan 76, scan presented on TV show at 12:56)

	“The Church of Scientology came to Florida's Suncoast in late 1975 wearing a cloak of secrecy that concealed a dagger of deceit.
	The mystery began Oct. 27. The Fort Harrison Hotel was purchased by Southern Land Sales and Development Corp. for $2.3-million hard cash, and then a few days later the old Bank of Clearwater building for $550,000.
	For whom? And why?” (from ‘St. Petersburg Times’, 16 Dec 76, scan presented on TV show at 13:01)

At 13:11 the ‘Clearwater Sun’, 3 Nov 79 shows the article heading: “Scientologists plot city takeover”. It reads “the sect wanted to control the city's politicians, media and religious groups.” Then a subheading says “Shocked officials say they'll fight”. Obviously there had been some resistance from some places according to newspaper coverages.

At 13:09 Denis de Fleming: “Slowly, it's coming out. This town is being taken over. They have chosen us to be their spiritual headquarters, and they are going to buy up our town.”

All we see that is told is that various town officials resists, among other the then Mayor Gabe Cazares. We don't learn about the regular residents of the town. Was there a movement, or were there only activities from a few town officials. This is not made clear.

Gabe Cazares, the Mayor of Clearwater (1975-78) spoke out against the Scientologists, this however turned him into a target of the Church. The extend of this apparently was uncovered in seized materials that came out in the open when the Scientology offices in Washington DC were raided 8 Jul 77 by the FBI. It is certainly not looking good for the Church. (see at 13:40-20:00)

Deliberate policy misdirections...

At 15:05-15:13:
		lifted quotation: HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV

At 14:55 Mike Rinder: “Scientology embarked on a campaign of Fair Game to cost Gabe Cazares his job, and to completely discredit and destroy him.”

This one is tried here once more! Please explain Mike Rinder, how this can be applicable at all, if one does not operate off CANCELLED policy letters! There is policy on that! Are people studying CANCELLED policy letters?! This particular reference is superseded 8 times! Did you Mike Rinder, operate off a CANCELLED policy letter or were you during your 25 years of being the head of OSA just doing nasty things to people because you were following orders coming from some place?!

The other one is:  (at 19:01)

At 18:50 Mike Rinder: “You can go back and look at the policies where he says to bring governments into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology, and to control such agencies.”

Where the actual paragraph of these lifted quotations and the reading of Mike Rinder says:

“The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in bringing good order.”          LRH (from HCO PL 15 Aug 60 “Dept of Govt Affairs”)

May be some effort should be taken to refrain from cutting sentences apart and then present these out of context just to make your case! Now what was the policy letter actually about? Ask that question!

	“There shall be established on a board level and outside the structure of the Central Org and HCO but under the board of HASI Ltd, a new department to be called ‘The Department of Government Affairs’.
	More and more, as governments disintegrate under the threat of atomic war and communism, central organizations have had to give high executive time to governmental affairs to the great loss of the organizations themselves. The enturbulence entered into Scientology activities by legal matters, tax matters, and matters of assisting governments to maintain stability, has sapped our time and fixed our attention to our own loss.”          LRH

The policy letter is three pages long, giving examples and so forth, read the whole thing at your own leisure if you wish... then establish if or how it could apply to the Clearwater situation. The indications are that Mike Rinder did not go through that process.

The Clearwater history [cont'd] (80s)

At 22:41 screen dump text: “In 1982, after being petitioned by citizens of Clearwater and the filing of numerous civil lawsuits, the mayor and city commission held hearing to investigate Scientology's activities.”

These became known as the Clearwater Hearings that were broadcasted life on Clearwater television.

	At 24:53 Mike Rinder: “That potentially could have put an end to this mess had the city then not over-reached, and tried to enact an ordinance which was designed to get Scientology out of Clearwater.  [ref. ‘St. Petersburg Times’, 18 Jun 83]”
	At 25:10 screen dump text: “After the ordinance passed, Scientology sued the city of Clearwater of discrimination.”

	At 25:17 Mike Rinder: “The ultimate outcome of that case put the nail in the coffin of the city's efforts by ruling that Scientology was right. That this ordinance was unconstitutional and the city had to pay Scientology costs and fees of 600-plus thousand dollars.  [ref. ‘Tampa Bay Times’, 8 Dec 83]
	At that point, the city of Clearwater basically decided ‘this is not a fight we can ever win,’ and... crawled into a hole.  [ref. ‘Tampa Bay Times’, 9 Oct 94]”

The Sand Castle - Ever since the Church has been acquiring more and more properties in Clearwater. There was the Sand Castle complex that became the place used by the lesser financially fortunate Scientology parishioner that were taking services at Flag. Nice location at the waterfront in downtown Clearwater. It was though in a pretty deplorable state when I was there, it was literally like a sand castle. I remember tiles in bathrooms falling down in the bathtub if you touched them. The rooms were smelly, the floors were covered with very thick dark brown carpeting, ugly, old and worn at many places. The complex was completely renovated starting at the end of 1989.

Hacienda Gardens - Another purchase were the Hacienda Gardens, a complex of buildings, located a few miles outside of the center of Clearwater. A Scientology bus took you there. These were the residences used by the staff of the Flag Land Base. I spoke with the persons that had to clean the area when it was just purchased, they said they literally had to run off the rats that had invested the place. Homeless people also had been living there. It wasn't in a good state, although it got upgraded over the years. The materials used for the ceilings and the walls were not good for your health (we suspected it contained radon). When I resided there it was an open place (late 80s), you could just walk right through it. You can't do that today, since then they have erected walls and hedges all around it with cameras, to get in you have to pass a gate with guards.

‘Buying a Town (Part 2)’  (s3e10 - 29 Jan 2019)
	[Wiki: Leah and Mike travel to Clearwater, Florida, spiritual headquarters for the Church of Scientology. Speaking with some of the city's most prominent Scientology critics, they explore how the controversial 1995 death of Scientologist Lisa McPherson marked a turning point in the Church's history.]

• Lisa McPherson case (1995)
• Battling with the Church over Lisa McPherson

The same quests appear in this episode as the previous one, but the most talkative of them here is “Mark Bunker: Journalist and filmmaker”, because of his involvement with the Lisa McPherson happenings.

Lisa McPherson case (1995)

	At 5:46 Mark Bunker: “Lisa McPherson was a devout Scientologist for 15 years. She had been recently reconnecting with old friends and saying that she had doubts and she was thinking about coming back home, and shortly after that, she got into a minor fender bender in downtown Clearwater. And by the time the police came and the ambulance, she had stripped off of all of her clothes and was walking down the street naked, and a paramedic came up to her and said, ‘Why are you doing this?’ And she said, ‘Because I need somebody to pay attention to me. I need help’. So they took her over to the nearby Morton Plant Hospital and they checked her in there.
	Within an hour, ten Scientologists came to the hospital and talked her into leaving and going back with them, against the doctor's wishes. They had to release her and then Scientology took her back to the Fort Harrison Hotel in locked her in a room for 17 days. ”

The court records of the case tell she was subjected to a process called the Introspection Rundown (ref. HCOB 23 Jan 74 “The Introspection Rd”), which theoretically would deal with a psychotic break. It was thus figured by the Church that Lisa McPherson suffered from this. The first step of the rundown instructs: “On a person in a psychotic break isolate the person wholly with all attendants completely muzzled (no speech).”

This is tricky because did she not say to the paramedic “I need somebody to pay attention to me. I need help”, which is the opposite of that she asked for.

At 7:04 Mike Rinder: “Unfortunately, Scientology's rules also don't include having anybody trained to deal with someone in Lisa's state. They literally grabbed anybody that could be spared. They had no training, they had no idea whatsoever what they were doing and had no ability to effectively deal with someone in her state.”

Well, the rules actually say that if you have some person with a physical condition you send them to a doctor. It is true however that the persons that were watching her were not trained for this. I knew several persons that were on the lists of people that were watching here, as their name appeared on the court records. They were just picked from Flag staff and assigned to watch her.

At 7:29 Mark Bunker: “Every day, the caretakers would take logs and you can see in the logs that her condition is getting worse and worse and worse every day. The last three days of her life, those records were destroyed by Scientology. Marty Rathbun confessed to that. He ordered them destroyed.”

Yes, these logs were made available through the court. Destroying records for some days doesn't disprove the fact that Lisa McPherson was denied medical attention.

	At 7:53 Deposition of Mark “Marty” Rathbun, 22 Dec 2014: “Q: Was the McPherson case the case in which you have acknowledged that you ordered the destruction of documents.
	A: At the behest of David Miscavige, yeah.”

	At 8:00 interviewer: “You ordered those days of logs to be destroyed.”
	At 8:03 Marty Rathbun: “Right.”
	At 8:05 interviewer: “Could you explain, you know, why you did that?”
	At 8:08 Marty Rathbun: “To protect the organization. One of them was talking about the witness in the case pleading with the doctor, who was on staff, to get Lisa to a doctor. That was like a smoking gun incriminating in terms of people knowing that she was in a deteriorated physical condition.”

At 8:28 screen dump text: “On Day 17, even though a hospital was five minutes away, Lisa was driven 50 minutes away to Scientologist doctor David Minkoff. She was pronounced dead on arrival.”

This was quite a blunder, as when it was finally realized that she needed urgent medical care, another 50 minutes were wasted and that assumably may have lead to her death.

The initial autopsy performed indicated severe dehydration. If that was the case she should have received a drip, but none of the persons involved with her had knowledge about these things. Her death, per this scenario, could be said to be because of negligence.

Battling with the Church over Lisa McPherson

At 9:59 Mike Rinder: “We, Scientology... hired the foremost criminal pathologist in the world, three of them who came and lived in Clearwater. I mean, these were the guys that had just finished the O.J. Simpson trial, to find credible explanations that would place the findings of Joan Wood in doubt.”

10:28-10:35:
		original autopsy report 6 December 1995 revised autopsy report 16 February 2000

At 10:55 ‘Tampa Bay Times’, 7 Mar 2000 in article “Hired pathologists take church's side” say some interesting things, such as ...

So, blood cloths (commonly) develop behind your knee and you know they end up in your lung? That caring staff was doing all these things and no one sought medical advice? The original autopsy stated “severe dehydration”, how exactly would you miss that if it wasn't there?

I can say that these staff would not have been particular motivated to watch that girl, because it pulled them off post production. That is the simple reality of it...

At 10:41: “It was money to hire people who have great influence.”

Probably so, yes.

At 11:04 screen dump text: “Though the criminal charges were dropped, a civil case was filed by Lisa McPerson's family in 1997.”

	At 11:35 Mark Bunker: “There was also a civil case that was funded by soon-to-become my boss, Bob Minton, who was a retired international investment banker, and he started looking back into this in 1995, and the more Bob started looking into it, meeting former members, he decided he wanted to help.
	And one of the things he did was, in 2000, he opened up an office right next to Scientology's Office of Special Affairs in the bank building, and he gathered a few of us to stand up to Scientology because the city wasn't.”

He also was the founder of the Lisa McPherson Trust (1999-2001).

He became a target and by 2001 he was forced to agree to settle matters with the Church.

At 28:41 screen dump text: “Lisa McPherson's family settled the civil lawsuit with Scientology in 2004. The terms of the settlement are confidential.”

‘Church and State’  (s3e11 - 5 Feb 2019)
	[Wiki: Leah and Mike speak with Jay Wexler, an expert in constitutional law, to discuss the remarkable story of Scientology's journey to tax-exempt status. Mike and Leah also talk with Lt. Yulanda Williams, a police officer, about law enforcement's community engagement strategies.]

• IRS tax-exempt status since October 1, 1993 (Incl.: Tactics employed; Tax-exempt hinder)
• Reasons and criteria for tax-exemption
• Arguments against granted tax-exempt
• Is lying alright for the Greatest Good?
• Scientology tax-exempt outcome

IRS tax-exempt status since October 1, 1993 (Incl.: Tactics employed; Tax-exempt hinder)

At 4:37 Leah Remini: “In past seasons, we have shown you stories of abuse... and the abuse of policies of Scientology, and we are constantly asked, ‘How does the Church of Scientology continue to get away with it?’ Tonight, we're gonna try to answer that question, because it really is about their tax-exempt status.”

She does say “the abuse of policies of Scientology”, which can be interpreted as if there is a misapplication of these policies as opposed to ordained by policies...

At 5:00 screen dump text: “Scientology waged a war against the IRS for 30 years to gain tax exempt status.”

It was an on and off situation, some countries had it, others did not, then it was revoked, and so it went on.

At 5:08 screen dump text: “In October of 1993, Scientology leader David Miscavige briefed Scientologists around the world on the state of the battle.”

At 5:42 Mike Rinder: “Today, we're talking to Professor Jay Wexler, from Boston University, who is an expert in church-state law. He's written a couple of books about it and has graciously agreed to help us and the audience understand some of these issues vis-a-vis Scientology and its tax-exempt status.”

At 6:51: “L. Ron Hubbard's will decreed that his estate had to be distributed to a tax-exempt organization of Scientology. The Church of Spiritual Technology was created for that purpose. I was a part of the team that restructured the entire corporate hierarchy of Scientology, including the creation of CST in the early 1980s.”

10:24 Mike Rinder: “So David Miscavige and Marty Rathbun literally walked down to 1111 Constitution Avenue, walked into the IRS building, and said, ‘Hi, I want to meet with the IRS commissioner’. It's reported that David Miscavige asked, ‘If we turn off the faucet of all of this... ‘Freedom Magazine's’ investigating, exposing, ads in ‘USA Today’ ...can you resolve our issues?’ and Fred Goldberg said, ‘Yes,’ and ultimately, the deal was done.”

At 13:54: “The IRS acquiesced on everything and basically granted all Scientology organizations and entities religious tax-exempt status, and all donations, all payments to Scientology from Scientologists, as being deductible, in October of 1993.”

At 14:16 Jay Wexler: “That part is extraordinary from my perspective. There's a Supreme Court case that specifically said that payment for auditing services is not deductible to the person who makes the payment, because it's basically a quid pro quo business transaction, and the Supreme Court upheld that and said, ‘That's right’. The Supreme Court held that, and then in this settlement, the commissioner of the IRS basically said, ‘Forget that, and from now on, you can deduct’.”

At 14:20-14:32:  ‘Hernandez v. IRS, Supreme Court decision, June 5, 1989’
		lifted quotations from court file same quotations on original court file source file (first page)

Reasons and criteria for tax-exemption

	At 15:02 Jay Wexler: “‘What is the point of having a tax-exempt program in the first place’. Everybody pays taxes. Individuals pay taxes, institutions pay taxes, corporations pay taxes, and that tax money goes to fund all of our public benefits. We, through Congress, we the people have decided, you know, there are certain categories of organizations.
	If you are in one of those categories and you meet all of the other requirements, those groups, because they provide a benefit that the government might not provide as much as we would like, they get to be tax-exempt, but we also have to realize that there's a cost, because that's less money going to the public, which either means that everybody else has to pay more taxes right out of their pocket, or it means we have less services, we have less defense, we have less education, we have less infrastructure, right, our bridges fall apart.
	That's why the agencies and the IRS, the Department of Treasury, have an obligation to make sure that if somebody is... if an institution is granted a tax-exempt status, that there's a good reason for it.”

At 16:22 Mike Rinder: “I would like to just go through these guidelines that the IRS uses to determine what is or isn't a religion in order to qualify under that part of the exempt code.”

At 16:35 Jay Wexler: “The first one is that the organization has to be organized formally as one of the listed types. Like, it has to be formally organized as a religious organization.”

	At 16:55: “The second one, which gets much more complicated and interesting, I think, is that you... that the organization has to be operated for the purpose that it's organized for, so if you say you're a literary organization, then you have to, in fact, operate as a literary organization.
	To go a little further in this operational test, is it acting as a commercial entity? If you're making tons of money, maybe you're a business, and so that's something that the agency has to look at. It's not an either-or thing. You can be a church, you can be a religious organization, but also be more commercial than a church, and therefore not deserve tax-exempt status.
	For example, an institution that says, ‘Our purpose is to protect against cruelty to animals,’ which happens to be one of the listed things, and you do some animal cruelty prevention, but you're also selling lots and lots of books about animals. Okay. And so you're making lots and lots of money, and that money maybe is even going to the person who runs the organization, right? In a sense, you are still an animal rescue organization, but you're all of these other things too, and so even though you are an animal-helping organization, you don't get tax-exempt status.”

At 18:08 Mike Rinder: “If your religious organization's primary activity is accumulating funds and buying empty real estate, that is not primarily the activity of a religion, and it's not providing a public benefit.”

At 19:51 Jay Wexler: “A tax-exempt organization can have money, it can have profits, it can have bank accounts, but there has to be some sort of rela... reasonable relationship, proportional relationship, between the money it has and the benefits it's providing. You know, the audience should understand that there's a lot of things that are clear in the law and there are a lot of things that are... that's mushy.”

Arguments against granted tax-exempt

At 22:58 Mike Rinder: “I also want to read you something that was sent to the IRS in the course of seeking exemption. This is what they said, and this is a public record document that was submitted to the IRS, saying, ‘You should be giving us tax-exempt status’. ...”

At 23:16-23:38:  ‘Scientology's application for exemption, November 23, 1992’
		lifted quotations from court file same quotations on original court file source file (first page)

	[cont.] “... This, to me, encapsulates the real story of this exemption. This is the arrogance, the assertion of ‘We will destroy you, we will attack you’. Why would anybody put that in there?”
	At 23:57 Jay Wexler: “Conflating the IRS trying to make sure that a non-profit organization is in fact providing a public benefit with the Holocaust and with Nazis is just... is just disgusting.”

I quite agree, this is shocking and inappropriate. The document even continues in the paragraph following in the court document with strange associations (click ‘original court file’).

	At 24:09 Mike Rinder: “Not only was the application itself weird, the granting of exemption came subsequent to court rulings, including from the United States Supreme Court, that said that the IRS was absolutely correct in denying Scientology exempt status and denying the deductibility of donations to Scientology.
	The court does not question the sincerity of the belief of those who practice Scientology.”

At 24:38-24:55:  ‘CST v. United States, US Claims Court, May 26, 1992’
		lifted quotations from court file same quotations on original court file source file (first page)

	At 24:55 Mike Rinder: “Okay, one more that I just want to mention to you. There was a decision that also went to the United States Supreme Court concerning these tapes called the ‘Mission Corporate Category Sort Out’.”
	At 25:10 screen dump text: “‘Mission Corporate Catefory Sort Out’ (MCCS) was the name of a project Scientology undertook in the early 1980s to attempt to defraud the IRS.”
	At 25:15 Mike Rinder: “These tapes were recordings of Scientology's lawyers planning to construct a scheme to avoid IRS taxation. The way that these tapes were described was...”

At 25:28-25:58:  ‘Church of Scientology v. U.S., Supreme Court, October 6, 1992’
		lifted quotations from court file same quotations on original court file source file (first page)

At 25:58 Mike Rinder: “Now, those tapes were turned over based on this decision, which was 1991, again, two years before the exemption, and the IRS had those tapes, again ignored, and effectively, that was all thrown out and IRS just folded its tent and said, ‘Okay, we'll give you exemption in spite of the fact that we have these’.”

At 26:27 Jay Wexler: “I can't imagine what the conversations were like, because all the stuff was in the... was in the public record and the IRS had a history of denying the tax-exempt status for so long. The IRS comes before the Supreme Court and says, ‘Here's... here are the facts,’ and they're... you know, they're what you read, and then to just ignore that is... is just... it's bewildering.”

At 27:28: “Religions get some autonomy to believe different things, but religions don't get the authority to go outside of themselves and impose harms, and burdens, and harassment on people who are just going about their business.”

This should be an argument as this is what has been happening. Now, did the ‘Manual of Justice’ (1959) not instruct to not take it too far. If you do, you will bear the consequences sooner or later. See here (separate window, see at “3. Judgment or Punishment” and “4. Rehabilitation.”)

	At 28:17 Leah Remini: “You've answered a question for me, which is very simple, which is it's not that it's... we're going after calling them a church, not a church, that's our opinion, but that's fine, we're just saying ‘You don't deserve tax-exempt status,’ and I think that's very simple, and I think that should be achievable by the IRS, and I think they should... It's time for them to do something about it.”
	At 28:39 Jay Wexler: “From everything I've heard, everything you've said, I agree absolutely.”

Of course, you always go for that which will bite...

Is lying alright for the Greatest Good?

	At 38:50 Mike Rinder: “If someone does come forward and says, ‘Look, I was assaulted. I was sexually molested, I was whatever,’ as soon as law enforcement informs Scientology that there is a complainer, there are 50 people who write affidavits signed on the penalty of perjury saying, ‘This never happened. It's impossible. It couldn't ever happen’.”
	At 39:13 Leah Remini: “And then law enforcement goes, ‘Okay, case closed’.”
	At 39:15 Mike Rinder: “And you go, ‘But, wait a minute, do you know that those people are lying?’ ‘Well, they are signed under penalty of perjury’. It means nothing.”
	At 39:25 Leah Remini: “... because Scientology has a term called The Greatest Good. The Greatest Good is to lie for the cause.”

There is not only the Greatest Good. Where does it say you can lie? How is that Scientology? Essentially the whole basis of auditing working is to keep away from lying, and instead expose of them. Did you come into Scientology to unriddle yourself or to burden yourself with more lies? In Scientology this is called an overt.

The correct quotation is actually “The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”. You have to take in account the effects it will have on these other dynamics* as well. A problem is that if you lie, all other things have to align to that lie. You can not forget about the lie, because if you do it can expose you. You need thus to uphold the lie.

Not sure what Leah Remini is thinking here...

Scientology tax-exempt outcome

	At 41:09 Mike Rinder: “Had Scientology not obtained tax-exempt status, it wouldn't exist. It could not have paid that billion dollars in assessments from the IRS. It would have had to be liquidated. The fact that it got tax-exempt status has now allowed Scientology in the subsequent 20-plus years to accumulate enormous amounts of money that it can use to do what it wishes.”
	At 41:41 Leah Remini: “The reason why an organization is tax-exempt is because they are supposedly providing a service to the public. That's why they have tax-exempt money, ‘cause they're like, ‘Oh, okay, we feed the poor, so that's why we need our money. We're doing good things. We're servicing the community’.”

There may be some truth in this, yes. At least we know that the tax-exempt status certainly did not make the services of the Church any cheaper, which it should have. See, it did not benefit the Scientology parishioner. Why then is this parishioner so happy with the tax-exempt? I guess the ones that have a company could make it tax-deductable, but not the employee...

‘Waiting for Justice’  (s3e12 - 26 Aug 2019)
	[Wiki: Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath concluded with a two-hour series finale special on August 26, 2019. In the finale, which was filmed for the first time in front of a live studio audience, Remini and Mike Rinder explored stories of how Church of Scientology policies have hindered members from reporting instances of abuse and sexual assault to the authorities. They spoke to ex-Scientologists who shared their stories of abuse at the hands of other Scientologists, and described how the policies are aimed at preventing the alleged crimes from becoming public. A panel of legal, psychological and law-enforcement experts also provided insight into the impact Scientology’s practices have had on its former parishioners and advised how they can seek justice and effect change in the future.]

• The isolated world of Leah Remini and Mike Rinder (1) (Incl.: Distortion of policy; OSA)
• “Scientology, the sex cult”(?)
• The isolated world of Leah Remini and Mike Rinder cont'd (2) (Incl.: Mispresentation of a bulletin?)
• The robot auditor
• Blaming the victim
• Blaming the victims (2) Danny Masterson, rape allegations (Incl.: ‘Ethics Protection’ vs ‘Ethics Presence’)

This episode of the TV show, which is the very last, is all about sexual matters. It can be judged that Leah Remini and Mike Rinder really outdid themselves this time. In this episode, more than previously, effort is taken to lay out their position in the matter of the ‘evil’ of Scientology and its founder. After all it is their last opportunity to take down original Scientology and of course L. Ron Hubbard. How right or wrong do they have... Well, find out for yourself.

The isolated world of Leah Remini and Mike Rinder (1) (Incl.: Distortion of policy; OSA)

At 8:56 Leah Remini: “And I think what's important about tonight, which I hope that we highlight, is how Scientology gets away with it... the ideologies, the brainwashing that goes on. And you usually start your indoctrination of studying. Scientology at the age of 6. ...”

If you are brainwashed, then it is you that allows it to happen. There is sufficient with information in the subject matter of Scientology itself to prevent that, so... take heed!

[cont.] “... We are taught to protect Scientology's reputation at all costs. Which means when something bad happens, it's... it's to be kept secret. ...”

Really... Where does it say “to be kept secret”? Sorry, I am unaware of “protect Scientology's reputation at all costs” particularly not for said reasons.

[cont.] “... You are raised to believe that anything that happened to you is because you did it in another lifetime to another, or something similar, or you've done something this lifetime to have received that punishment. ...”

Sorry no, no one taught me that. It does not say that in the writings either that you are to tell that. Where does it say that? To present it like this is just nonsense.

[cont.] “... And we are taught the outside world is evil. And so, as a young child, you think of the outside world as a very dangerous place. And your only recourse is to go to Scientology.”

I am sorry, but where does it instruct to teach that? At that, isn't the whole world a very dangerous place? And the exception would be Scientology, wow! I really wouldn't think so, It is humans there too.

At 9:50 Mike Rinder: “It creates an environment that is... it is literally a bubble, a bubble universe that exists around Scientology, that within that bubble, everybody is in agreement. And that agreement doesn't match with what society believes is normal or what society believes is the things that shouldn't and shouldn't be done, or the reports that should be made, or how a rape victim should be treated, or how a rapist should be treated. It is an enclosed world. And that world is dictated by the policies of L. Ron Hubbard.”

Sorry, that is false. Live in a bubble if you wish, you do/did, I won't. I disagreed with a lot of people. Policy letters give options, but where does it say in there to do things as implied here above? For example that about “rape victim” and “rapist” how they “should be treated”.

At 10:40 Mike Rinder: “If a Scientologist commits a criminal act, if they engage in rape, if they... even if they steal someone else's car, those things are seen to be liabilities to the organization. So we deal with everything internally.”

This is actually nót true at all. If you break the law of a country, you have to deal with the law of that country. Scientology policy certainly does not prohibit that. It is silly to think that the Church would be above the law.  (underlining is mine)

	“2. The Ethics Officer writes down all details of the theft and the articles stolen.
	In the cases where large objects such as a machine, car, or the building has been broken into and something taken, he calls the Police immediately giving full details of the theft.”          LRH (from HCO PL 15 Nov 65 “Reporting of Theft and Action to Be Taken”)

I guess Mike Rinder did not know about this... or was he... ah well...

At 11:02 Mike Rinder: “You know, every Scientologist truly believes if you put them in the hands of the psych-infested law enforcement and the... and the judicial system, they are being doomed to an eternity of black hellhole, that only by putting them into the hands of Scientology is there any hope that that person will be saved.”

Wow, all “law enforcement” is “psych-infested”, is that what Mike Rinder is implying? L. Ron Hubbard stated in an internal policy letter that ...

“It is also part of this that I have concluded man cannot be trusted with justice.”          LRH (from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)

This thus accounts for justice in the world, but there is no exception for so-called justice within the organization. The problem is “man” himself. You can have a perfect system, a perfect law, but if people do not apply it, misunderstand it, or manifest cowardice you will have injustice.

At 11:28 Mike Rinder: “So you have this sort of dual thing of, on one hand, it's always protect the organization first, it's the... the need to keep the image of Scientology good and pure, and on the other hand, it's an inculcated belief that to turn someone over to law enforcement is a horrific crime.”

I am sorry, that essentially is rubbish. I never defended someone because some person made a mess of an application of ‘Scientology’. In fact Mike Rinder describes a cult member here, but what does that got to do with Scientology? It does not instruct you to behave as a cult member! Where does it say all these things?! If you rape someone, Scientologist or not, you will certainly get the police and law enforcement on their trail! What person in their right mind would do anything else?! Right, that precious cult member! Well, a cult member you can be in ány organization. Even the company you work for. It doesn't necessarily define the company, now does it...

At 12:11:

It even prints it in the screen dump (that they leave out in the lifted text): “... in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology.”  LRH

	“Suppressive Acts are defined as actions or omissions undertaken to knowingly suppress, reduce or impede Scientology or Scientologists.”
	“Suppressive Acts are clearly those covert or overt acts knowingly calculated to reduce or destroy the influence or activities of Scientology or prevent case gains or continued Scientology success and activity on the part of a Scientologist. As persons or groups that would do such a thing act out of self interest only to the detriment of all others, they cannot be granted the rights and beingness ordinarily accorded rational beings and so place themselves beyond any consideration for their feelings or well being.”          LRH (both quotations from HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”)

In effect, that Mike Rinder is saying is, that you may not report a person guilty of committing a suppressive act to civil authorities, because doing so would itself be a suppressive act! That is INSANE!

	At 12:16 Mike Rinder: “If Something happens that would ordinarily be reported to law enforcement, it gets reported to OSA.”
	At 12:23 Leah Remini: “How would you explain what that department is?”
	At 12:25 Mike Rinder: “Like the internal police force of Scientology.”

Wow, I didn't know that. At Flag I have no recollection of OSA being involved even. I recall they had three OSA staff members there. I had frequently contact with Cathy Ross of OSA because I was not an US citizen. They dealt with legal issues, not police business. If there were such issues you would get hold of Security FC (Flag Crew), they if necessary would call law enforcement.

It is interesting that Mike Rinder only has knowledge about Gold Base and such places. Different stuff happening there per the witnesses appearing on the TV show that were at Gold Base. It is an error to think the same was happening everywhere in Sea Org. I know it was not.

“Scientology, the sex cult”(?)

	At 14:36 “Serge Gil: Scientologist for 37 years, Left Scientology in 2013”
	At 14:34: “So my name is Serge Gill. I was born in Scientology, back in Mexico in 1978.”

At age 13, after a “finished seventh grade” he and his “parents” moved “to Clearwater”. “It was instilled upon” him “that the most important thing that” he “could possibly do is to train as an auditor”. (at 14:44-14:52)

At 15:53: “I did two years of training. At 14, I signed a Sea Org contract and I went into the Sea Org.”

At 16:14 screen dump text: “At 16, Serge was sent to a Scientology reform program, the RPF, for ‘not being a productive staff member.’”

He joined Sea Org 1n 1992. On RPF in 1994.

On this RPF he tells about that children were auditing adults (and vice versa) on sexual things according to a confessional list of questions.

	At 17:16 Serge Gil: “I was given a guy that had been assigned to the program because he was a pedophile. He had been molesting girls. And he was supposed to be my therapist, and I was supposed to be his therapist in order to rehabilitate ourselves. A lot of the sessions were, you know, four or five hours of him telling me that he had raped me in another life. ... [he continues about details here on the TV show, which I skip replicating here]”
	At 17:56: “I didn't have an adult to say, this is inappropriate. And all the adults that were there were saying, this is OK, because this is L. Ron Hubbard.”

Excuse me? Who are these people, these adults? First of all a confirmed “pedophile” would end up on a Fitness Board* to determine if the person is qualified to remain in the Sea org. You don't send such people on some program or the RPF. You get rid of them! Being in the Sea Org supposedly means having a very high moral standard and so on. That's the first thing that is already totally out here!

You have a C/S* (Case Supervisor) that is reviewing each auditing session and he will say what next to do. That “pedophile” should have been pulled out immédiately! For sure you don't let a 16 year old audit such a person. Isn't that obvious?! A child asking questions of a sexual nature to a confirmed “pedophile”! Helló...!

Wow, “this is L. Ron Hubbard”? What an utter rubbish! Where does it say you do such things?! Where?!

Is this Serge Gil really telling the truth? This is insane!

The isolated world of Leah Remini and Mike Rinder cont'd (2) (Incl.: Mispresentation of a bulletin?)

At 19:43: “So in Scientology, children are considered big spirits in little bodies. And there's no difference between a child and an adult in Scientology. So if you're in the Sea Org, you are doing these confessionals, you're giving these confessionals to adults, and being exposed to explicit sexual content. And this is standard practice in Scientology. And when I say, standard practice, this is not my opinion. It is the way Scientology is laid out to do.”

Sorry, not true.

At 21:10: “Scientology is going to look at this and they're going to say, you guys are misrepresenting this whole subject. All auditing and everything isn't about sex. And that actually is true. Not every question is about sex. But there are enough.”

There are only some questions that appear in one confessional list. It is in fact very very limited. At 15:26 the one main list is pictured, it is HCO PL 7 Apr 61 “Johannesburg Confessional List”. Also it does not appear in regular or Bridge auditing. You are not even allowed to use it for HCO investigation purposes, this since HCO PL 26 Aug 68 “Security Checks Abolished”. Since that time you can also say “no” to a list being run on you. I know that I did at times. What are they going to do, sue me? Nothing happened.

	At 22:21 Leah Remini: “So... so you're saying, as a professional, if you heard these stories from a child in Scientology, would you call the authorities?”
	At 22:28 Dr. Natalie Feinblatt: “Yes, absolutely. I would be mandated to do that.”
	At 22:31 Leah Remini: “People feel that their stories are not valid. I'm very glad you brought that up. Thank you very much.”
	At 22:35 Dr. Natalie Feinblatt: “Yes, because I mean, what we're talking about is, like, institutionalized covert sexual abuse of children.”
	At 22:38 Leah Remini: “And guess what... it's all in their books.”
	At 22:41 Dr. Natalie Feinblatt: “Yeah, I know. Yeah.”
	At 22:43 Leah Remini: “Just so everybody knows. It's all in their books.”

What books? Where in those books? Children asking adults about sexual things in auditing procedures. Where? Interesting is that this quest Natalie Feinblatt is fully acknowledging that this would be “all in their books”. Did they prepare her with stuff or what? Where in the books, what does it say, they won't tell!! They don't present a case!

I have never come across in Scientology ever that a child is forced to ask such things to adults in auditing. Certainly not in my time. Needless to say that such a thing is seriously inappropriate to do, and it is not dictated in policies anywhere that I know of. You don't have children run confessional type of auditing. What are they thinking?

At 24:01:

This is actually HCOB 30 Nov 78R “Confessional Procedure”. Not sure what the confusion is, it does not go by that title as the TV show prints it.

Sort of interesting is that the original HCOB release actually cancels ‘BTB 31 Aug 72RB, Confessional Procedure’, which is a non-L. Ron Hubbard issue-type.

The robot auditor

At 30:16 “Joey Chait: Former Scientologist of 38 years”

On a video that is posted on YouTube, Feb 2018, ‘Growing up in Scientology’ series, there he is interviewed by Aaron Smith-Levin he tells at 3:42 that he turns 40 in two weeks. He is thus born in 1978.

	At 30:51 Joey Chait: “I was 13 or 14, and I was auditing an adult. He was about 30 years old, I think. And in one of our sessions, he began to tell me about a very particular time where he had committed the sin of molesting his 5 or 6-year-old niece. And as an auditor, you go into your training routine.”
	At 31:24: “Where did this happen, when did this happen, and very, very specific questions that I was trained to ask him.”
	At 31:41 Leah Remini: “And you were never taught to report this person as a pedophile. No, because Hubbard never wrote it. And if Hubbard never wrote it, then you can't do it. Because when you're a trained Scientologist, especially at a young age, you don't have to think. The thinking has already been done for you. And L. Ron Hubbard wrote very specific policies on what exactly you're supposed to do. So I was just following his instructions.”
	At 32:49: “Because the core of Scientology is the auditing itself. All sessions are exactly the same. ... And there's no way around it, because Scientology will never change the words of L. Ron Hubbard.”

That is false! Why? Because you'll make a really lousy auditor if you do not compute.

Well, if you are “following his instructions”, then why don't you follow this:

	“I don't expect auditors or Scientologists to instantly agree with or seize upon whatever I say. I would be offended if they did and would feel they weren't a Free People. Since they are intelligent I expect them to think over what's said, try it, and if it's good for them, use it.
	I sorrow when I see somebody accomplishing less than he should because he thinks I wouldn't approve of it. In organizations and out I count upon initiative and good judgment.”          LRH (from ‘PAB* 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)

For some reason Joey Chait was told and taught to be a robot auditor. Just listen to what he says!

Funny, the Church has been changing the words of L. Ron Hubbard for decades now. This started already in the 70s and ever since that time it was not anymore reversed, as it was previously. Since the 80s hundreds of references were released with an L. Ron Hubbard signature and cancelled again in 1991 because they were false signatures. I addressed this here (separate window).

Blaming the victim

	At 37:41 “Victoria Locke: Former Scientologist of 12 years”
	At 37:22 Mike Rinder: “Victoria says, by the time she was 11, unbeknownst to her grandparents, a relative over 20 years her senior was raping her on a regular basis.”
	At 37:36 Victoria Locke: “I was about 10 or 11. I was experiencing a lot of depression. I was very troubled. I was self-mutilating and hurting myself at that point. And my grandmother thought it would be best if she brought me to a psychologist because it was out of her scope.”

This was averted by her brother who “had been in Scientology for a while by then”. Who “decided to take” her “to his auditor”. (at 37:55-38:18)

	At 38:20 Victoria Locke: “So that's how I got in. I was about 11.
	Fast-forward, I was having trouble at school. My grades were slipping. So my relative decided to tutor me.”

After a while the “relative” became abusive.

At 38:41: “So it started from fondling, to molestation, until it was rape. And that went on, unbeknownst to my grandparents. So that went on for about six months.”

Finally she told her “brother” who was very “emotion” less about it. Then “he advised” her “to tell” her “auditor”, who was the same person as his own auditor. (39:00-39:45)

	At 39:46: “They both decided, for some reason, to bring my relative into Scientology to get auditing. He had nothing to do with Scientology before this.”
	At 40:36: “So it's my auditor, my brother, my relative, and myself. And we were just talking it out. And then I remember I needed to take responsibility for seducing him, for breaking his marriage up, for angering his wife, for taking him away from his family four nights a week. So I had to apologize to him. And I had to hug him in front of my auditor and my brother.”

And that was the end of it, problem “handled and solved”. Of course this is illegal as it should have gone to the civil authorities and reported to the police. The act of this relative is breaking the law of the country. Doing as had been done here to this girl is probably the worst type of betrayal.

At 42:41: “Yeah, one of the things that L. Ron Hubbard did was to make Scientology extraordinarily self-serving. And part of the... one of his teachings... is that the worst thing you could do to a person is to send them to a prison... a non-Scientology prison. Because that would destroy them. And they would put them on psychiatric drugs, confine them, electroshock. So he made prison sound dangerous, and Scientology could handle people. So therefore, while sexual criminals, in Scientology, belong in prison, Scientology makes it sound like that's the worst thing. So therefore we should just talk it out, and you, the victim, should apologize for pulling it in.”

Wow, having pity on a child molester and rapist. Wouldn't any person in his right mind would want such a person to be locked up in jail and the key thrown away? There is nothing that says that any person that goes to jail will be subjected to “psychiatric drugs” or “electroshock”, very rarely happens. So, why is he saying that here?

These notions shared by Jeffrey Augustine are absurd and illogical. Are you going to care for the offender and not the victim? How is that Scientology? You get the child rapist off the streets and prevent the person to ever hurt another child again. Isn't that what the outside of Scientology world in effect is doing on a daily basis! Scientology says to not reward down statistics, if you letting off child rapists, then isn't that what you are doing?

It is not untrue there is an attitude within the Church to blame a victim, but this is a primarily a case matter and left for the auditing chair. You are nót supposed to burden a person (accuse) with that outside of the auditing room. Unfortunately this is occurring, just don't call it Scientology.

Blaming the victims (2) Danny Masterson, rape allegations (Incl.: ‘Ethics Protection’ vs ‘Ethics Presence’)

At 2:18 Leah Remini: “Recently, four brave women filed a lawsuit against David. Miscavige, the Church of Scientology and celebrity Scientologist, Danny Masterson. Two of those women you will hear from tonight. Two of them would like to remain anonymous. They are named as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2.”

As per the testimonies given these women were first drugged and then taken advantage of sexually.

At 3:23 presented text, court document: “140. Defendant [] required Jane Doe #1 to begin an ethics program that [] designed. ... It required her to read many policies, including those policies that state it is a ‘high crime’' to report anything criminal or negative about another Scientologist”

It may be noteworthy that it does not actually specify report it to whom. Meant of course is to civil authorities. Now, what “policies” say you can not? If you first report it internally in the church, alright. then if you have four persons making the accusation it might really be time to investigate the accused and dó report the person to civil authorities.

After “more than a year” the Church “trying to convince Jane Doe #1 that she was not raped”, she did file a report for “sexual assault” to the LAPD. (at 3.45, from ‘Complaint, Bixler v. Church of Scientology, et al.’, §150.)

At 4:16 presented text, court document: “208. ... Jane Doe #2 understood from her Scientology coursework that she would not be permitted to report the assault to civil authorities outside of Scientology.”

As with Jane Doe #1, where does it say this in that “coursework”?

In the case of this Danny Masterson. Did he not effectively lose his right to call himself a Scientologist if he has done these things he is accused of having done. He is accused of this not by one, not two, not three, but four victims. “sexual or sexually perverted conduct ...” (HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”), see at [27] here (separate window).

Per this, he is under the allegation of having committed a ‘high crime’ himself. And now you may not report him to civil authorities, because that would be a ‘high crime’... helló... anybody there?

	At 46:25 “Chrissie Bixler: Scientologist for 20 years, Left Scientology in 2016”
	At 48:56 Chrissie Bixler: “I... went to the church and asked to speak with the Ethics Officer at Celebrity Center. I told her what happened. The first thing she told me was, stop using the word rape. It's not rape if you're in a consensual relationship. And you've been together for how long? Six years. Yeah, stop saying rape. OK, I'll stop saying rape. And then she said, you've done something to pull this in. So, meaning it was your fault that it happened. You had done nothing wrong to receive this from the universe, specifically Danny. She then told me that I must have done something to deserve it. And if I were to tell anyone, or if I went to the police, I could be declared a suppressive person.”
	At 56:21 Mike Rinder: “So you go in and you report you've been raped. Does anybody say to you, are you OK physically? Are you hurt? Do you need to be treated for anything?”
	At 56:35 Chrissie Bixler: “No, in fact, they [the Ethics Officer] said that they were assigning me a very lengthy ethics program to find out what I did to pull it in. To... what I did... that I deserved that.”

	At 57:11 presented text, court document: “63. [] then ordered Plaintiff Bixler to read several Hubbard ethics policies including ‘Ethics Protection’ and a list of acts considered to be ‘High Crimes’ within Scientology, which if committed, would result in a person being declared an SP.”
	At 57:20 Leah Remini: “OK, so this policy called Ethics Protection is basically implying if we are promoting Scientology, promoting ourselves as successful because of Scientology, then Scientology sees us as kind of producing Scientologists, right? But especially as a celebrity, they have protection.”

Now, if Danny Masterson violated “sexual or sexually perverted conduct ...”, then why would hé not be up for “being declared an SP”, why did hé not lose that “protection” or at least getting investigated? Could it be because of a money consideration, after all celebrities have a lot of money to spend, and can also reach other celebrities to join Scientology (prospects for more money).

At 57:48 presented text: “... if a person is doing his job (and his statistic will show that) Ethics is considered to be in and the person is protected by Ethics.” [originally from HCO PL 1 Sept AD15 VII “Ethics Protection”]”

Then how are statistics up if you attract a lot of media attention for rape accusations. Not just one but four in this case? What did Danny Masterson do “to pull” thát in?!

At 58:04 presented text: “In short a staff member can get away with murder so long as his statistic is up ...” [originally from HCO PL 1 Sept AD15 VII “Ethics Protection”]”

Here you violate the law of a country. That phrase was a matter of speaking, I have never even heard of a person, inside or outside of the organization, taking that literally. If you murder, you will be a huge liability obviously. If it is exposed and it was covered up by a company or organization, then see where their statistics will be at! Did Leah Remini and Mike Rinder not consider this? Why not?

It appears wholly pending on what the success rate is based on as the HCO PL even states: “When people do start reporting a staff member with a high statistic, what you investigate is the person who turned in the report.”. If you operate on a preset series of criteria, assumption or prejudice, you will get it wrong in the end.

“The way you continue to have Ethics presence is to be maximally right in your actions, decisions and dictates. Because if you're wrong the other fellow gets wrapped around a pole for complying. And the pain of that starts to outweigh your own Ethics presence.”          LRH (from HCO PL 4 Oct 68 “Ethics Presence”)

The fourth victim, Bobette Riales, came forward because she says she identified herself when seeing the testimonies of Chrissie Bixler. (at 1:03:58-1:05:20)

It did not work out very well for Danny Masterson. He is serving jail time at present. “30 years to life in prison” according to Wikipedia. I guess the Church got it wrong...

Facebook initiatives

• ‘Supporters of “Leah Remini: Scientology & the Aftermath”’
          (Created by Aaron Smith-Levin)
  
• ‘Fans of Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath’
          (Administrator  Tony Ortega)

‘Supporters of “Leah Remini: Scientology & the Aftermath”’ (Created by Aaron Smith-Levin)

It was Aaron Smith-Levin, motivated by the original TV show, his participation in it (season 1/episode 6), who on 26 Sept 2017 started the Facebook group ‘Supporters of “Leah Remini: Scientology & the Aftermath”’. It wasn't the first Facebook group about the show, but is associated directly with the TV show for which reason I start with this one.
All the people that participated in the show as guests appeared as either administrators or moderators in the group at one time or other. It included Mike Rinder, not however Leah Remini. I have seen Mike Rinder responding in the group. After all the original description of the group read: “The official fan group moderated by Contributors of ‘Scientology & the Aftermath’. We are here to answer your questions about the show and about Scientology. Welcome!”. It was figured, who does that better than the persons that actually appeared on the show. Now you can direct you questions directly to them in person.
Criticism expressed in the group however, valid or not, was regarded with an indeed very criticial eye. It simply wasn't allowed.

	“Aaron, someone of the admins/mods just kicked me from the group. No warning, explanation, nothing!
	I also find that a whole array of my postings have been removed! I did respond in detail to you in Traci Kinel's thread that was inquiring about ‘Scientology and homosexuality’. You had tagged me, did you see my response? All gone now from the group, although I did save my responses off-line.
	I did notice that among other Claire Headley and Chantal Dodson questioned me and accordingly tagged you in the group.”

	“Hello. I just reviewed the activity from today and undid the removal. I did see a bunch of your posts and / or comments from yesterday and I do agree that many of them were not appropriate for this group.
	You have to keep in mind this is a private group. It is also a group specifically and only created to support the show.
	This is not the place to bash or criticize the show. The entire rest of the internet exists for that. We don't need to have that in this group.”

So, first he is undoing the removal of my activity, and in the very next he turns against me?! The only thing I did was correcting historically incorrect information. The message received from Aaron made it clear that one is not to step out of line, you have to go with the flow, and remain silent if something is told that you know and can show is incorrect information. And I wondered, and in this vein you are going to answer questions about Scientology?

I had contacted him because some person in the group had kicked me out of there, for which no reason was given, no warning or anything. Then suddenly he himself apparently found “a bunch” of posts/comments and “I recall one or two comments you made that, to me, were completely out of line and certainly didn't seem like you would even consider yourself a ‘supporter’ of the show.”. Without ever telling me what I had had written that was so wrong, I only received these generalities from him.

	“Quite frankly this treatment I am subjected [to] now is something that I would expect the CoS* to do. Matters voiced, it being correct information or not, are deleted and the person uttering them is removed with no communication.
	Did you know I was kicked? If you didn't know about this, you can check in ‘Manage Group’ then ‘Admin activity’. It lists who did what and it can even be ‘Undone’.”

	“The group primarily exists for NON-Scientologists to get their questions answered.
	This group absolutely does not exist for former-Scientologists to play devils advocate or to criticise the show.
	This group has a very specific purpose. To. Support. The. Show.”

Yeah, “support” no matter what apparently, doesn't matter if the information is wrong to start with.

Facebook says Aaron's YouTube channel carries “1.5K videos” to date. It may appear to be his life's calling. He left Scientology, but his life continues to be occupied with it to a great extend nonetheless. A strange notion, as he basically thinks Scientology is nothing to have. Most of his videos are just an entertaining, essentially trying to find fault wherever he can. If he interviews someone or has a quest, he is not investigative.

It is ironic that so many of these persons that have been wronged by the organization, they now want to turn this around, this time they want to wrong something. They however are not using reason. They dramatize what they figure has been done to them. They need a target (outside of them) for blame! They are not interested in finding the true story, they are interested to find stones (any stone) they can throw, to give back, enjoy the feeling of a revenge. My published studies expose the organization on many fronts, but they don't want to use that. In itself this is rather interesting. I tried to offer my help, but Aaron declined. He judges and blocks. Has he himself become that he hates?

The Facebook group - His Facebook page about the show was popular and attracted a lot of attention. Back in its heydays, while the show was on the air, it had a long list of administrators and moderators. Today (8 Mar 2024) it only lists eight unique persons. The bulk of the quests that were on the show have thus left. Also for some reason the name of the group changed on 29 Feb 2024, it is now calling itself ‘Supporters of SPTV’. I found on the SPTV YouTube channel where this stand for, it is ‘Suppressive Person TV’. I thought for a moment that it might be Scientology Protest TV, but that was thus not the case. It is a confusing new name, I saw other persons asking what SPTV stands for.

The group also lost its growth rate, at present it lists ‘Members · 35,411’. The bulk of that was acquired during the time the show was aired and a short while after.

	“Do you know why my posts are being accepted by one admin and the deleted by another? ...
	I've had 14ish posts taken down in the last week.. I'm very confused ...
	Did I do something wrong?”

“Any Insight in this would be wonderful I feel like I've done something wrong and i have no Idea what”

An administrator was looking into it, but already 2 days have passed and still no response (it would take less than a minute to check it out). It just never changes now does it! This bad monitoring. And then they themselves have become that what they first had started out to fight against... Think that over for a moment.

‘Fans of Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath’ (Administrator Tony Ortega)

• Tony Ortega and his seven-year-old girl
  
• First confrontation with Tony
• Tony Ortega and his little boys
• Russell Miller, the Bare-Faced Messiah?
• A visit from OSA?

Now, there was this competing group started more than a half year earlier (5 Jan 2017) that also was commemorating the show. At that time there were only three admins. I have been in contacted with all three, the creator of the group, one Garrett Pattiani, and another of the admins, Lucy Collins. My experience with the third admin, Chris Elston, was devastating. He just kicked people as he saw fit, for all of the wrong reasons and behaved very unjustly. The other two admins were informed about that. It would appear that Chris Elston was disciplined as Garrett did remove the block on my person. There were however some further developments that did not all work out all that well. I simply decided not to stay on. It was just not a nice place to be in, at least not at the time.

Another person was taken in as an admin at exactly that time.

Tony Ortega appears...

This person had joined the group 13 Jul 2017, he is a worst case scenario compared to Chris Elston.
A journalist that had build himself a repute by making fun of Scientology, its founder, any person that that says a word in favour of it, and everything else about it. As far as known he has no previous knowledge or personal experiences with Scientology at all. Nonetheless he seems to harvest from his own computation that if you hate something deep enough, and are particular aggressive about it, that you can make your case. He considers himself an expert on the topic of Scientology, but it is easily shown that he is not. He can not be argued with, although I did make some attempt.

Tony Ortega and his seven-year-old girl

	“Thank you very kindly for adding some sanity in that thread you closed commenting on that addressed that paragraph in Dianetics and that 7-year old girl vs pedophilia. I basically presented the same position as you did here as I did in the other group in where Tony Ortega operates as a moderator. He kept chasing me around with his pedophilia argument, and in the end kicked me from that group. Next, a friend notified me, Tony smeared me on his blog about it.
	I agree with you that the example given by L. Ron Hubbard for what he was trying to explain is not the best example picked.
	Is the disagreement you had with Tony about this explain why he is not anymore a member in the group?”

“Yeah, he left to [sic the] Supporters group “in solidarity”’with Mirriam, who left the group because she felt bullied that people didn't agree with her.”

Mirriam Francis, photograph from Tony Ortega's article

Tony Ortega admits in a article he published 14 Oct 2017 on his website/blog, that his inspiration about the “seven-year-old girl” came from Mirriam Francis, who appeared on the TV show. According to Tony she appeared on the first show of the second season. Tony refers to “her story of being molested by her father, and how the church protected him”. When asked her opinion about it she responds “That's right. It is simply not a true statement to say that all Scientologists must think that pedophilia is acceptable just because they read this book. That is just too broad a statement. However, I do believe that the support of or adherence to an organization that has this line written in its text and not calling for it to be removed is, by definition, condoning it.”
Essentially she contradicts herself here. First she states it goes too far “to say that all Scientologists must think that pedophilia is acceptable”, next she says that the same Scientologists are by “not calling for it to be removed is, by definition, condoning it.”. The problem is that if a said Scientologist reasons as she suggests, why would that person be satisfied with just removing the passage? See, why would this person at all be interested to stay in Scientology?! After all if L. Ron Hubbard, she figures, wrote/promoted such horrific things!
She goes on and on in that interview with Tony Ortega stating that “this passage is harmful”, and “it is L. Ron Hubbard’s own words of blatant support of child sexual abuse”. Mind that she got that all that from a snippet presented out of context. I can't help thinking that a better remedy may be to not take snippets of text and present them out of context as Tony Ortega regularly promotes. If you do that you can even make Jesus appear as if the devil, that too has been done.

What does Mirriam want? Ultimately what is she trying to say? That L. Ron Hubbard somehow is responsible for what she says her father did to her? Does she think that people suffering from such awful denominations feel invited to join up with Scientology, that is after reading that snippet? She does figure that “this is one piece of a broader fight to eradicate Scientology’s culture of protecting sexual offenders and denying victims of their rights”. Church policy essentially already does not condone that, as it instructs you may not do something that violates the laws of the land. There is no policy that I know of that says something else, or instructs you to put the lock on something like this for some reason. There isn't! So what is it we are dealing with here really! May be it is time to look more closely at the behaviour of some people working in that organization and hold them personally responsible?

Regarding that snippet of text. A problem is that man tends to see or interpret things in a certain light because of emotional affliction for things that personally happened to them. For them it may turn into a matter of just association as opposed to reason and analysis. We know that Mirriam Francis has afflictions as she talked about “being molested by her father”. Then Tony Ortega, what is his affiliation with it, why is he so emotional about it! What is his issue with such an incident, why does he respond so aggressively? What makes that clock tick. Should we ask what he isn't telling?! Here you may have an explanation why he is this phrenetic about Scientology and that sort of thing.

First confrontation with Tony

“Why do you attack me in the group? May be the agreement should be about that neither of the Indies, you and people like me (I am no Indie) approve of the CoS. The entity that is responsible for and does ALL the harm!! Who cares about L. Ron Hubbard, he is dead. The target is David Miscavige! We appear to have three mutual friends Richard Coanda, Ian Waxler and Grace Aaron. You may wish to ask them about me, in particular Grace Aaron.”

“Your website makes me laugh uncontrollably, so thank you for the entertainment.”

Well, ain't that a swell guy?! He was thus not interested to “welcome additional tools to fight the CoS”. It does make him look “suspect” as I told him. No response. It was though not enough for him with that and on his website/blog he posted (on the same day, 7 Oct 2017) an article attacking and making fun of me and my website, once again he forwarded his theory about that “seven-year-old girl”. He was so naïve to even attach most of the exchange I had with him about that in Aaron's Facebook group. It makes you seriously wonder at what level he is at in regards to the use of the English language? He does present himself as a person that is unable to understand matters in context! Conceptional understanding seems alien to him.

“earlier he had made the old claim that L. Ron Hubbard canceled the “disconnection” policy in 1968, and that it was Miscavige who brought it back. What he’s referring to, however, was a 1968 statement that Hubbard made cancelling disconnection because it produces bad public relations.”

He very seriously confuses matters here. You see, our Tony talks about disconnection, but what he refers to here above is about fair game. It is different things. He mixes them both up in the text that he writes. And if he would exchange the word disconnection with fair game, he even then would have it wrong which is very easily proven. Now, the reader may decide if he/she is going to take this individual serious or not... after all if you make such errors!

Tony Ortega and his little boys

It is particularly interesting to see that our Tony Ortega really understands squat about matters like for example psychotherapy, techniques for treatment of mental conditions, mechanics of the mind. Let him open up an advanced textbook about these things. See what he understands... Tony thinks however it is only found in Scientology. He grabs a tape lecture in where techniques are shared about technical issues, and he thinks he is then qualified to analyze that and write an article about it. Isn't that what you would call dilettantism...

Russell Miller, the Bare-Faced Messiah?

	“If there is only one book you are going to read about Scientology, let it be Russell Miller’s epochal biography of L. Ron Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah.
	Not only does it debunk Hubbard’s tall tales about himself with the actual documentary evidence, but it is told with such wit and sagacity that you will find yourself amazed that anyone ever took L. Ron seriously.”

Well, this is an analysis of the person Russell Miller, his mind-set, his inadequate research and referencing, his missing interviews, his presumptuous claims that he only can support with his opinion, and more of that. May be Tony can have a look at that, and if he knows he has right (and I am sure he thinks that), he can debunk it all! Not with opinion or generalizations but with an academic veil.

“The tale of Russell Miller's ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’”  (separate window)

A visit from OSA?

This Tony Ortega is another of these persons that is not interested to have the true tale of events being told. One may should wonder what fishes he has to fry, as he has never actually been involved with Scientology?! He still does not understand nor has much knowledge about the topic itself. Nonetheless for many years now it has been his life's crusade to fight it. So much effort occupying yourself with something you disapprove of, why would you do that? My message to him was forthcoming, and what does he do, he immediately attacks and ridicules. It was like a bullterrier that awakened that was interrupted in his sleep. What did I ever do to him? Why does he attack me? Has he become that he claims he hates? I guess some people just have to be like him...

Now, bad news is essentially as effective as good news. See, it gets attention. People don't differentiate, they hear and read that they want to hear or read. Could Tony Ortega be a hired hand (or a tricked hand) to advertise Scientology? Just think about it for a moment...

Vocabulary:

     AD..:
‘After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs had been revoked.
     CoS:
Short for ‘Church of Scientology’.
    C/S:
‘Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
     Dynamics:
The urge, thrust and purpose of life – SURVIVE! – in its eight manifestations. The First Dynamic, survival of self; the Second Dynamic, the urge toward survival through sex and children; the Third Dynamic, the urge to survive through a group. The Fourth Dynamic, the urge to survive through all mankind; the Fifth Dynamic, the urge to survive through all living things; the Sixth Dynamic, the urge toward survival as the physical universe; the Seventh Dynamic, the urge toward survival through spirits or as a spirit; the Eighth Dynamic, the urge toward survival through infinity. (Marriage Hats booklet)
     Fitness Board (FB):
Its purpose is to determine the mental and physical fitness of personnel and recommend the issuance of probation or denial of a provisional or full fitness certificate. (FO 2630R)
     Gold Base:
Holds the Golden Era Productions facilities where Scientology religious training films and audio properties are produced and technical compilations occur. (‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition), page 508)
     HASI:
‘Hubbard Association of Scientologists International’.
     HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
    IMDB:
‘International Movie Database’. Internet address: https://www.imdb.com. Used as a source reference.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     PAB:
‘Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other.
     RPF:
‘Rehabilitation Project Force’. For more detailed information see article here (separate window).
     Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AOs) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.
    Wiki:
On this page this is short for Wikipedia. Used as a source reference.