BAD Mike.

I have this crazy idea of making a card game that’s like “Making a Cult — Who Will Win?!” where players have to try to resist overtures from a player who is the “cult leader” — by using Steven Hassan’s BITE model, and understanding how MLM “math” does not work, and so on. How to make it fun, and not too preachy or educational (borrrring, lol!!), though?

Anyway, great episode, y’all!!

—Long-time listener, first-time commenter 😄

Wow!
Hubbard was really a miser. You can see it from his policies and how the staff get paid – not to mention the ban on aid to the most deprived, downstat, which is a crime.
DM, on the other hand, is a sociopath who has reformed scn based on his ego and loves to see others trudging along, but he too is a skinny breed.

Well done!

Yes that is how Robots are, needing orders to operate. But the church didn’t even fund the VM’s. I had a friend call me to hit me up for a donation so he could go help out somewhere as a VM. I said well isn’t the church paying your way there? He said no, that each VM had to get his own funds to go do this. How cheap can our church be to sit on billions and not pay the VM’s for air fare or food?

He’s the one who Mike refers to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOAdBBUfDj4

Very worth listening to!!!

“…consider In Matter of Ismailoff, where a New York surrogate court refused to enforce an arbitrator qualification clause that required selection of “three persons of the Orthodox Jewish faith.” The court concluded that enforcing such a provision would violate the Establishment Clause because it would require a judicial determination as to whether the arbitrators were “orthodox.” And doing so would entail impermissibly resolving an “issue concerning religious doctrine or practice.”

This logic would seem to apply equally to determining whether an arbitrator is “in good standing with the Mother Church.” Determining whether proposed arbitrators satisfied this standard would presumably require judicial interrogation of religious doctrine; it seems most likely that interpreting and applying that standard both entails identifying what religious behaviors are necessary for good standing and then applying those religious standards to prospective arbitrators. As a result, it would be unconstitutional to enforce the arbitrator qualification clause.

One can imagine the Church of Scientology responding with the following counter-argument: the arbitrator qualification provision in Garcia does not require adjudication of a religious question, but simply asking the church whether the proposed arbitrators satisfied the theological requirements of good standing.

The problem with this argument is that it would empower one party to determine which prospective arbitrators are, and which are not, eligible to serve as members of the arbitral tribunal. And granting one party authority to either control the arbitrator selection process or to circumscribe the pool of eligible arbitrators renders an arbitration provision unconscionable precisely because it threatens to undermine the neutrality of the arbitration panel. See Zabrowski v. MHN Gov’t Servs., 601 F. App’x 461, 463 (9th Cir. 2014); Hooters of Am., Inc. v. Phillips, 173 F.3d 933, 938 (4th Cir. 1999). Indeed, granting the Church of Scientology final say over which arbitrators satisfied the “in good standing” requirement is particularly problematic given that no court could ever review the Church’s determination because of the religious question doctrine.

Importantly, there’s an additional consequence to invalidating the arbitrator selection clause. To the extent a court were to invalidate the arbitrator qualification provision, it is quite likely that it also should invalidate the entire arbitration agreement. This is because courts are to invalidate the entirety of an arbitration agreement “where the designation of the arbitrator was ‘integral’ to the arbitration provision [and not] merely an ancillary consideration.” See, e.g., Khan v. Dell Inc., 669 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir. 2012); see also Brown v. ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 211 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2000); Gutfreund v. Weiner (In re Salomon Inc. Shareholders’ Derivative Litig.), 68 F.3d 554, 561 (2d Cir. 1995). Given the nature of the overall arbitration agreement, it seems to my mind that the arbitrator qualification clause requiring arbitrators in good standing with the Church of Scientology ought to be viewed as integral to the Church of Scientology arbitration agreement.

…..”

CONCLUSION: This is good news, and ought be widely shared, so people planning to sue Scientology hire this Helfand person for their case!!

Bingo. Double Bingo.

My conclusion exactly, after years working in the justice department of Scientology, and participating in Sea Org for 27 years, and many times advising other Sea Org members of the loopholes that do exist.

What is gained is re-entry to the quackery cult. Who really wishes that, if they have their heads on straight?

Why this is so hard for outsiders to relate it, is why do people fight so hard and even attempt all the hoops and actions to undo their injustices by the cult, to win their way back into participation with the cult?

It’s truly hoops to being allowed to throw away your life and money doing snipe-hunting quackery?

It’s incredibly messed up.

(When I first got out, since I was an expert in policy, I unfortunately spend several years on the phone talking people through how they could undo injustices Scientology did to them. I was like a helper for Scientology, inadvertently, telling kicked out members how they were incorrectly unjustly messed over by even Hubbard’s rules they shouldn’t have had done to them.)

It’s such a long bad proposition trying to get justice, since injustice by a quackery cult is a good thing.

People kicked out should stay out at all costs, and take it as a plus.

Hubbard admitted failure at the end of his life, plus he was unable to use his own secret exorcism procedures to exorcise a really pesky troublesome surplus soul he never was able to exorcise.

Failed at his own quackery exorcism, and admitted failure.

Who wants that. Who in their right mind would fight injustices of a quackery exorcism group, to try get back into that exorcism group and be made pay exorbidant amounts of money and time to do the quackery exorcism?

Today, I tell newbies the Xenu info, about how Hubbard failed at his own exorcism of Xenu’s body-thetan at the end of his life, and was in sad mental shape.

The best thing outsiders can know is the Xenu theory, and to tell the Xenu theory to all concerned, since Scientology leaves you alone if you tell them Xenu theory.

Hubbard made Scientology rules to leave the people who talk Xenu theory alone.

So, best thing to know about Scientology, is Xenu theory, and Scientology will leave you alone.

Jere,

Do you remember Lynn Visk, she was in SO Number 1 Unit, and I was secretary on a Comm Ev with her the Chairman. Due to her personality and her experience on the SO Number 1 line dealing back then in the earlier 1970s with people petitioning and writing for help to LRH, there were some things written which Lynn was familiar with to help those earlier era Scientologists who’d been grossly screwed over, to help them get some justice.

One is the Board of Review, and there are three criteria to undo a bad justice “cycle.” Only one of the three criteria need be met, and the unjust justice “cycle” can be undone.

Also, Petition, which LRH did order that ED Int take over the “hat” of Petition receiving and adjudicating, was to exist. This loophole has closed, and I don’t know of any Petitions in the last 20 plus years being approved. It’s truly lost as a loophole.

Board of Reviews can be overturned, or sat on, by AVC, and under Miscavige, since he per an LRH order was left the responsibility to set who and where AVC was to be, so this put Miscavige as above AVC, and AVC is above Int Justice Chief and Int Justice Chief is above the “SPs” who are trying to petition for redress and injustices fixing.

You’re right, but the Hubbard writings are still there, and a new crew in the future could potentially open up the spigot of the loopholes.

Even as late as 2002 on the PAC RPF I urged one RPFer do his petition, he got it approved and he got off the RPF. He told another RPFer who in turn also did their petition and got off the RPF also.

Unjust RPFing, two people, I know, I saw it happen, got off, as late as 2002.

The loopholes won’t die, since they are policy. It just depends who is AVC and whoever is AVC is in tune with what Miscavige wants, and that closes the loopholes.

Or, when enlightened later AVC and whoever is over AVC doing Miscavige’s job, is more lenient.

In the lower ranks, once I made my way down to PAC level Sea Org member elbow rubbing, I noticed they followed policy, and if a matter could be totally locally decided without upper intervention, then locally, lower down the totem pole, people will stick to what Hubbard wrote.

When there are fads and people up above tipping the scales, setting fads, then injustice prevails.

But a stickler, I was one hands down no one ever ever beat me, can use policy to fend off all fads.

Do I wish to, no, since winning at the Hubbard justice loopholes, only gains one participation back in the quackery cult. Why would anyone wish to do that?

And, a later upper AVC terminal or person could complain, and end any gain one attained using the standard Hubbard loopholes.

Losing proposition.

“…..quit fast……” Keeping Scientology Working, L. Ron Hubbard. The best course of action.