This is a follow up to the recent post: Scientology Lawyers and Litigation
A selection of his orders/dictates that must be followed to the letter in perpetuity.
People attack Scientology; I never forget it, always even the score. People attack auditors, or staff, or organisations, or me. I never forget until the slate is clear.
The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK
…those who try to make life hard for us are AT ONCE at risk
The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly
Always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don’t ever defend. Always attack.
COUNTER ATTACK TO OBTAIN THE REMOVAL OF THE PERSON with a product of DISMISSED ATTACKER.
We must ourselves fight on the basis of total attrition of the enemy. So never get reasonable about him. Just go all the way in and obliterate him.
The court system has been used violently against us. The answer is to develop ways to use it against litigants so effectively that they become incapable of harassing us through it.
If the court system can be used against an upstat by the unscrupulous downstat, then certainly it can be used to rapidly nullify any downstat.
The why of all this is that lawyers delay and prolong in order to make money. Therefore, if it can be made too expensive for them to continue a case against us, they will drop it. Not only that, they won’t start one in the first place.
If they use the court system to harass and hurt and make life unlivable for us, then this reveals that the court system can be so used. If it can be used that way, then new ways to use it against litigants can be developed so they wish to God they had never had the idea of harassing us in the first place.
The strategy could be called, “punitive defense.”
The word would get around mighty quick. “Don’t tangle with or sue Scientology. It just buys so much trouble and expense, we can’t face it.”
There is a strategy in war which can apply to Legal.
It is a very clever strategy and time tested, but never picked up and used generally. It consists of exhausting the resources of the enemy or potential enemy without even engaging in a direct confrontation.
The end product is that he goes into despair and succumbs.
It can be worked in many ways.
And even while you are doing this, wins and precedents can be gotten out of existing cases. That would leave you practically unassailable while you continue to apply the above strategy.
The war should be on enemy terrain and you should keep it there.
Our lawyers ought to be quoted Clausewitz’s “On War.”
“The purpose of war is to bring about a more amenable frame of mind on the part of the enemy”.
You always fight on the enemy’s ground—not yours. You always bargain with the other fellow’s chips and on his ground.
One must realize that jurisprudence is a form of warfare and follows the rules of war.
In warfare, he who invents or uses a new or better strategy or tactic will win, not only the battle, but the whole war itself.
The only loophole on the matter is if terminals on these lines remain timid and if the attorney retained to handle it is defensive and incompetent.
Attackers of Scientology are basically cowards and they are basically liars. The first factor is handled by a good legal attack on them personally and individually. The second factor means any competent attorney defends against all.
Legal is not a complex subject. All it is, is the system by which you figure out better reasons.
The enemy says: “Oh well, I’m innocent because there were seven oak trees standing in the grove and I only cut down six of them, so I did not destroy the forest because there is an oak tree and so forth.” “Ah well, you don’t know the point of the matter: A forest is a plurality of trees.” He loses.
To be on the ball just think of the better reason. There is no final answer ever, but you’ve got to give an answer that is so convincing that it is the final answer, that people will buy it as the final answer.
Criminal law is different. Murder is murder. The corpse was there, the guy was standing with a knife in his hand and seven guys saw him do it. Well, there’s the final answer.
Sometimes you have to go back and walk around in a circle a few times and figure out and dig into the files. But you know what you are doing, you are not giving up, you are just looking for a better reason. They say, “Well, they consumed all the goods and threw them all away and here are the signed receipts.” And you go back, “He wouldn’t take them back when we sent them back; said he didn’t want them back and so that’s why we had to give them away: He refused to accept the goods.” “Oh? Good. Well that’s all right, he’s guilty then.”
There’s another side to this. Not only better reasons why you’re innocent, but better reasons why they’re guilty. “Well, anybody is permitted to conduct a social committee, something or other and so on,” is the defense. “Yes, but not to have it own corporate collective property.” “Oh, that’s true, didn’t think of that.” You keep thinking up reasons why they are guilty.
They try to justify it by precedents. Nearly everything is tried by precedents: it is what went on before, what has been adjudicated on this subject. Therefore you hear lawyers saying: “Barts and Barton, 1892: A cargo of goods was landed on the street of London and no demurrage was paid on this to the City and the City tried to claim demurrage and Barts and Barton didn’t have to pay and it was found against the City in this particular case, so therefore Barts and Barton proves conclusively that Smith and Company has a perfect right to leave their ship in the middle of the fairway.”
You have to know that you have to go to the books. That’s what a lawyer isn’t normally good for: going to the books. A lawyer is only as good as he’s been educated and most English solicitors have not been educated at all. All they are is to solicit business for real lawyers, so don’t depend on them.
The gist of this is it is not a complex subject. You must not be confused about it and we must not flub by fooling around with legal in a stupid way. That’s what law fattens on: the stupidity of the citizen.
One of the earliest things we learned about legal is you could take a confession to people and hand it to them and nine times out of ten they would sign it. That is why the insurance companies, instead of paying out claims, go around and get waivers of claims. They send out a claims adjuster. A guy has $10,000 coming to him. The claims adjuster cuts the thing down to fifty cents by giving him all kinds of reasons why it can’t be done: “It doesn’t say that” and he “didn’t read the small print” and “sign on this line and we will give you your fifty cents,” and they quibble a bit and then he signs. It is too much for him.
If you were sued for parking your chewing gum under a chair you would have to answer that suit. So you answer the suit by saying that you are now suing the person who sued you for $10,000 for damage to reputation. Then if he loses his suit he has to pay you a $10,000 damage. That is not three suits, that’s just an answer to a suit. You don’t just tamely say “No, I didn’t do it.” You say, “No, I didn’t do it and I’ll give you a better reason, because I wasn’t even in town at that time. And this is a blackening of my reputation and I demand $10,000 in damages.” They’re suing you for $10,000 and you’re suing them for $10,000. Always sue them for a juicy amount back. That is routine in an answer.
If a suit is not answered, it’s lost. You have to answer a suit in fifteen days and if you don’t, the judgment can be awarded against you providing somebody applies for it. So you have this guy served with a summons for parking chewing gum under his chair and a $5,000 damage suit for doing so. He’s got to answer that and, fifteen days later, if he has not answered it, then you apply for a judgment.
The court, although it’s supposed to operate exactly that way, normally doesn’t. It tries to get the guy to answer and it delays and is very illegal in its proceedings.
Legal is a type of warfare. A warfare of better reasons.
Win a case on its merits. Delay a case where the merits are indefinite or until the merits can be firmly established.
Iamfromanywhere says
Ohh, nice Targets. Thanks a lot!
mark says
So, there you have it folks: El Con Hublard’s plan for “protecting” the dreck, the dreckologists, and the dreck organizations, this universe’s ONLY HOPE for “salvation”.
Ah, the epitome of aesthetic spirituality and the picture of “total freedom”, eh?
Unfiltered, Industrial Strength Evil…
aldeboni says
Attack is mostly from human beings understood as fight and giving force… but attack in response as a defense is basically surely not destructive… all defenses also attacks has as a target to pull in more understandings… you can see that with the works of Buddha or Jesus… you can attack this guys, okay – but both of them give you since thousand of years still Affinity and Admiration… so there is and were also forces included… but this are interpretations of the original… The only attack as a defense is and was at all time and forever… more understanding… but it seems that understanding is a real difficult scene… it looks like a real problem… and so is the word attack… stupid people take it only as fighting…
aldeboni says
The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK…as it is said, it is a stupid way of life…but it means basically that the ATTACK is not defined… something which may LRH has forgotten to say… too much words from him to everything – but surely the Attack can also be Love… and with LRH words Affinity, and Admiration… which is at last the best attack against everything… which is finally and and at last also the real and only way to defend anything… okay?
Anonymous says
That’s one area Miscavige hasn’t squirreled.
Glen says
I thought so too. Wonder if the diminutive midget just doesn’t think all this will ever get out broadly and he’d be forced to say; “oh that was all in the past and was based on errors but I’ve corrected it al since. I have salvaged our religious technology and the errors of the past have been eradicated.”
Mike. Thanks for reminding me of all I knew in my time working in legal.