Mike Rinder's Blog

Something Can Be Done About It

Scientology Sockpuppet Speaks (Sort Of….)

By 38 Comments

sockpuppetCorporate Scientology has mastered the art of speaking out of both side of its mouth and keeping a straight face at the same time.

See Tony Ortega’s article about the Laura DeCrescenzo case this morning. While pleading that the CHURCH is being “discriminated” against (they have also mastered the art of playing victims — everyone including the courts, psychiatrists, governments, SPs, media, the internet, drug companies, cyberterrorists, anyone who dies in their care and the martians are out to “get” them) and how turning over Laura’s pc folders will prejudice “other religions,” they don’t mention that they hang onto these folders so they can comb through them to use against “critics”, or that they have admitted that more than 200 people have had access to her pc folders (and that doesnt include those they have NOT admitted to, including the fact that sessions are video’d). Nor do they mention the simple fact that she isnt asking for someone else’s folders or “privileged” information. She is asking only for her own files — THEIR record of HER statements. The church is NOT protecting her from the disclosure of her confessionals to a hostile source, they are ONLY seeking to protect themselves by hiding their records of what she said because they will SUPPORT her claims. Such amazing hypocrisy under the guise of sanctimonious “religious beliefs.”  The only religious belief at issue here is the belief that they must protect themselves from the outside world at all costs….

But then here comes another doozie. This time from nominal “spokesperson” Karin Pouw STILL responding to Larry Wright’s book. Karin has not actually SPOKEN in a few years now. She is simply the name affixed to victim letters sent out by the church to the media. She does not write the letters.

His/her/their latest contains much to laugh at, but one particular paragraph is especially noteworthy (you can find the complete text of the letter at the end of this post, so as not to be accused of “quoting out of context” — another of their favorite victim phrases, to be covered in an upcoming post…):

 • Ms. Johnson seeks to perpetuate the myth that lawsuits “are Scientology’s principal weapons against its outside critics.” Yet she can cite no example more recent that 1971, and for good reason. In fact, the Church has not filed suit against a media organization in more than two decades. While we reserve the right to sue over defamation and the spreading of egregious falsehoods, the public record is clear: we go to great lengths to avoid litigation.

 Wow, someone’s nose grew a few inches when they wrote this — Dave/Dan.

Of course, Ms. Johnson left herself open to the parsing of sentences and distinctions without substance that is the primary tool of Miscavige in “attacking the attacker.”  Had she said “Threatened lawsuits are Scientology’s principal weapons…” Miscavige/Sherman/Pouw would have had nothing to protest.  Any member of the media that has attempted to report on Scientology has been the subject of numerous letters from lawyers and threats of litigation — this is well documented with copies of the letters published or read out on air on numerous occasions.  So, it IS true that the church does NOT sue the media these days. They cannot afford to as Miscavige is terrified of having to take the stand to testify.

But there is an even bigger lie in this little paragraph.

Somehow they managed to pick out that Ms. Johnson “can cite no example more recent that (sic)1971…”

Funny about that. The church sued Time Magazine and Reader’s Digest following the Time article in 1991 and of all people, David Miscavige knows this. He directed every aspect of that case. They also sued Richard Leiby and the Washington Post in 1995.  But maybe it’s a typo, as she does go on to say that they haven’t sued the media in more than two decades. Yeah, probably a typo. But the church has ridden Wright into the ground about the typo in his book giving the wrong year for Tom Cruise’s wedding — as if it is absolute proof that everything about his book is flawed and inaccurate as “he can’t even get that simple date right….”

OK, it’s hard to type when you have socks on your hands….

But the HUGE lie that cannot be written off as a typo is that they are responding to the quoted statement from Larry Wright’s book that lawsuits are the principal weapon used against “outside critics.”

Apparently in the bubble in which Miscavige/Sherman/Pouw reside, the word “outside” excludes Debbie Cook.  She was an “inside” critic? Because the church DID sue her and her husband in 2012. At the very time Larry Wright was writing his book. And she was certainly a critic…

The church always claims that any criticism of their abusive practices are “fabrications and lies.” They do it again here in another of the very stale “bitter defrocked apostates banding together to run a campaign to sell their self-published books” lines, ending with the  brazen statement: “Yet they can’t find outside sources, police reports, public records, or any other objective, third-party means to verify their allegations.”   I call bullshit on that too.

Again, how are they defining “outside sources?” There are a lot of “outside sources” who have verified the existence of the Hole, physical and mental abuse, beatings by Miscavige. They discount them all because they are former “inside” outside sources… Or they have written a “self-published” book… Or they “banded together”… Or something.

And there are certainly public records. They forget the Debbie Cook court case again? Or the Headley case (well, that doesnt count because they didnt prevail on the legal issues, but that didnt invalidate the sworn testimony, cited by the Appeals Court). Or the declarations filed in the Luis Garcia case two weeks ago, or the Garcia case itself? Plenty of public records…

Unfortunately, the FBI doesnt make their investigative files available, so they can pretend no reports exist there. But there are plenty of law enforcement and government agency reports available outside the US. And I have half a dozen police reports of harassment by PI’s in the US, as do Marty Rathbun and Karen DelaCarriere. But they don’t count either apparently. The sockpuppet is expert at one thing — asserting things as though “everyone knows” they are true when they are in fact bald-faced lies.

Seems to me Corporate Scientology simply accuses everyone else of doing what THEY do so facilely: Lying, while assuming the mantle of victims and oppression. 

Here is the full letter:

To the Editors:

Diane Johnson’s sophomoric line claiming that you can spot a Scientologist by their “glazed look” tells you everything you need to know about her bias and prejudice toward the global religious movement and why she was the wrong person to objectively review Lawrence Wright’s book [“Scientology: The Story,”NYR, April 25]. This does a great disservice to readers of The New York Review of Books.

Among Ms. Johnson’s misstatements:

• Like Mr. Wright, Ms. Johnson regurgitates the false allegation that L. Ron Hubbard once said that “he’d like to start a religion because that’s where the money is.” This myth was exposed years ago via several court judgments in two countries that established that Mr. Hubbard never made such a statement.

• Ms. Johnson seeks to perpetuate the myth that lawsuits “are Scientology’s principal weapons against its outside critics.” Yet she can cite no example more recent that 1971, and for good reason. In fact, the Church has not filed suit against a media organization in more than two decades. While we reserve the right to sue over defamation and the spreading of egregious falsehoods, the public record is clear: we go to great lengths to avoid litigation.

• She extols Lawrence Wright’s fact checkers, but omits completely that the Church has documented dozens of factual inaccuracies and undermined the credibility of key sources for his book. These inaccuracies include everything from citing an interview with a source with whom Wright never corresponded or met to claiming that the Church owns banks and schools in Clearwater, Florida, which a simple check of public records shows is false. He even botched the year a prominent celebrity Scientologist was married even though the wedding was covered by scores of media worldwide. Add to that tales Mr. Wright printed from news clippings without mentioning they were later recanted, along with allegations he prints from court cases that conveniently neglect to mention they were tossed out as baseless during judicial proceedings. In one case, Wright attributes a bizarre, unsubstantiated tale about a phantom crime even though police and court records show no such crime ever took place. Mr. Wright’s source: a man who once publicly claimed that his daughter and father had committed suicide with the Reverend Jim Jones in 1978, but later admitted he made it all up.

• Her sweeping pronouncement that “Scientology is a moneymaking outfit” flies in the face of six decades of reasoned conclusions to the contrary reached by judges, government administrative bodies, and religious experts worldwide.

• Ms. Johnson refers to Lawrence Wright relying on the work of Dr. Robert J. Lifton to condemn Scientology. Something Ms. Johnson and Mr. Wright failed to note is that in 1987 Dr. Lifton himself sharply criticized any use of his theories of coercive persuasion when applied to participation in new religious movements.

• The review happily embraces a small collection of former Scientologists and self-promoters behind an orchestrated media campaign. In an attempt to sell self-published books, they invent new, increasingly bizarre tales while “corroborating” each other. Yet they can’t find outside sources, police reports, public records, or any other objective, third-party means to verify their allegations.

We believe your readers should be able to judge for themselves whether Mr. Wright did his homework, or whether he merely compiled a laundry list of exaggerated claims and allegations made to newspaper and TV reporters by disgruntled ex-members. Publishers in the United Kingdom and Canada chose not to publish the book, which we believe speaks to quality of the facts, allegations, and sources Mr. Wright used. And while we are aware libel laws are stricter in those countries, if a book and its sources tell the truth there should be no cause for concern by a publisher….

Karin Pouw
Public Affairs Director
Church of Scientology International
Los Angeles, California

Comments

  1. Secretly videotaping is a real breach of priest-penitent trust. I think there are quite a few witness’ that can talk about that.

    If it is all about “priest-penitent trust”, as they claim in their most recent FALSE REPORT entered into the court records, WHY are there video cameras in all of the auditing rooms now?

    Reply

  2. Mike,

    Has Corporate Scientology ever, since its inception, released an apology letter of any sort, no matter how trivial?

    Jeff

    Reply

  3. A minor observation: on reading the “Karin Pouw” letter in the NY Review of Books, my immediate reaction is that this is NOT the work of Danny Sherman. The prose is not full of the narcissistic “look how great a writer I am” bloviation characteristic of Sherman. I don’t think he can stop himself, even if functional illiterate David Miscavige didn’t get off on all that over-the-top wording. There was a missive signed Karin Pouw a couple weeks ago (I forget exactly what) that was very much written in Shermanspeak.

    My guess is that this could well have been written by sometime PR person and full time “D list” Scientology outside attorney Gary Soter, who is probably itching for work after his stellar performance in the Debbie Cook case and other recent cult litigation losses. It might also have been a Pat Harney production. But FWIW, this one is almost certainly not Sherman.

    Reply

  4. I love a man that posts dox for all to see and dissect. Thanks for your continued good works!

    Reply

  6. As an auditor from 1977-98, I can guarantee you a Confessional/Security check without the R Factor at the beginning of the session ” I am not auditing you”, hasn’t happened since probably the mid to late 70’s. The only exception maybe be an FPRD Form used as an Advance program.

    Reply

    • It was happening in the Sea Org between staff in the 90’s. I know because it happened to me. I was getting SEC CHECKED on OTHER PEOPLE! YES! Sec checked on what I knew about other staff!

      I became a sort of ” go to” figure for staff in trouble or staff wanting to “natter” (I didn’t write KR’s on them) or staff wanting to leave or whatever. I didn’t have issues giving staff money to leave or for airlines tickets and I didn’t turn on people if they wanted to leave or had a gripe.

      One day I am routed to an auditing room and there it starts! I am getting sec checked on what I might know about other people!!!!!!!!!!!! The sec checks weren’t even about ME! I started getting sec checked on OTHERS!

      For instance: (After “I am not auditing you” r factor)

      Has ______ mentioned anything to you about leaving?
      Do you know of any problems _________ might be having?
      Did ________ have anything negative to say about the Sea Org?

      My theory was this, If the auditor sitting across from me could look at me with a straight face and say, “I am not auditing you”, then “Start of session”. I could sit there and look back with the ides that I wasn’t really getting auditing, therefore not obligated to act like any P.C. or wear that hat, and the abracadabra was a two way street.

      Did I ever know anything? No. 🙂

      That whole system was pretense. And it went BOTH WAYS. A waste of my time. A waste of the sec checker’s time.

      I never agreed in any way to have the emeter used on me to investigate other people. Not before during or after the Sea Org. Those people had shifted to some other planet with purposes for the emeter.

      Reply

  7. The posting by Tony Ortega on Laura de Crescenzo has a copy of the Corporate Churchś answer where they state that the “examiner and Director of processing are trained auditors” as they are the only other terminals that have access to her folders besides the Auditor and C/S- well, hardly any examiner or D of P are trained auditors-that is another lie and as you say, they are loosing it- I guess they have definitely lost track of the many lies they have stated in an attempt to cover up their criminal behavior.
    We shall see…

    Reply

    • Silvia, and the church fails to mention that untrained MAA’s see their folders too and the auditor KR’s from the auditing.

      Reply

  8. To: The Oracle
    Thanks for your comments/insights re: pc folders.
    Makes sense, and puts into better perspective what is contained in them (utter garbage).
    Thanks!

    Reply

  9. Look ….when you have anointed yourself as the only possible savior of the universe then lying, squirreling away ill gotten billions, and telling parishioners what they want to hear is just what you have to do to get on with the job. It’s messy but necessary.

    It will all pay dividends in the end……..just wait and you’ll see!
    ,

    Reply

  10. Jane,
    Good point. Very likely RCS is not differentiating between sec checking notes and auditing notes, and I would think they’d be a lot more concerned with releasing the former to the scrutiny of the court.

    Reply

  11. As we all know and the court should quickly figure out, Catholic confessions and Scientology sec checks are not even remotely the same animal. If the priest hooked you up to a lie detector and grilled you on a prepared list of topics, including harboring disapproving thoughts toward the pope and/or pedophile priests, and if your only choice was to submit to the confessional or be excommunicated, now we’re starting to get closer. Add in the threat of a forced labor camp and the likelihood of releasing the contents of your confessions on the Internet if you ever stop going along, and we’ve got a match.

    When I first got into Scientology mfpl decades ago, I could never have conceived how corrupt and pathologically dishonest this organization would become.

    Reply

    • Not to forget that when you don’t go along with what is demanded, you can get declared an “SP” (the threat alone is used as blackmail) which means disconnection (- from your spouse, your parents, your children, your siblings, your friends … who are Church members).

      Reply

    • Yes Aeolus! You couldn’t have said it better. Say it again and again for all the world to hear.

      Reply

  12. And what about the Sec Checks that begin with, the auditor saying, “I am not auditing you.” This was the R- factor given when the sec check was done not as a case action but more as a justice action, which in the latter years of the church, it has all become justice actions. DM felt they had to search for and find any critical thoughts against him, any connection to disaffecteds, to squirrels, to “find your crimes against the church, against DM,… etc” So my thought is that for the Sec Checks that began with the R Factor, “I’m not auditing you,” those should be easily available to be given back to the pcs who ask for them or to the courts that demand to see them, the reason being, it was NOT an auditing session and therefore was not subject to “priest penitent privileges.”

    Reply

    • Jane Doe,
      That is NOT the point. The Church claims that whether its is Auditing, Security Checking or Ethics Interviews/reports, all of them fall under the Priest/Penitent privilege, and the Church stamps all the Pc/Ethics folders in such a way.

      That is the pretense. The reality is that the Church of Scientology shares and uses any data whether from auditing or ethics to punish or control you as they see fit.

      But under California law Pc/Ethics information cannot be considered Priest/Penitent privileged because the eager beaver idiots at the Church share PC data with over 200 other idiots, by their own admission!

      Pc data must not be shared with anyone to be considered privileged.

      This is a landmark case that will boost the bubble forever that your pc data is confidential and outside the reach of the law.

      Plus as Mike and Marty mentioned before, his Holiness the Demented Vampire, has ordered all auditing rooms wired, at least in all Advanced Orgs, so your auditing sessions are now viewed live by a bunch of Church bureaucrats. He got you!

      This is a nightmare unfolding, Scientology has become the wet dream of the STASI, under a full religious cloak.

      It is a BLACK OPERATION as black as coal tar.

      And by the way, how in god’s green earth, can somebody who is been in Scientology since she was 12 years old, justify having more than 100 folders of confessional?

      If that is not BLAK DIANETICS I don’t now what it is.

      I sincerely hope that Laura DeCresenzo takes these son of bitches to the cleaners.

      Reply

      • > I sincerely hope that Laura DeCresenzo takes these son of bitches to the cleaners

        THIS

        Reply

      • Thanks for the clarification and data Conan. I see your point. I had been in Scn for decades before I found out that even the Flag Ethics rooms are wired and recorded. And get this, since they are now using only very young, green MAA’s who are new to Scn and new to Ethics, and did I mention very young? (maleable and controllable and untrained other than in an instant or maybe even full hat of their post if they’re lucky.) So since these young ones are so untrained in Scn, the ones I had had ear phone buds in their ears and were communicated to by ear plugs that you had to look hard to see, the other more senior HCO were viewing the whole thing behind the electronics set up and were telling this person what to say. And the young MAA could communicate to them with typing on the computer. It didn’t take me long to see all this. And I know they share personal pc information with everyone and their dog because I’ve experienced it. Certain buttons, things that were your achilles heel in auditing, your ruin, were brought up outside of session by registrars trying to close you to “go to Flag” or “buy more auditing” or whatever. They even made up stories of “other parishoners who had such and so problem, (coincidentally the exact same problem you have), these others bought the auditing and now are living happily ever after with ____” Fill in the blank with the button they culled from your folders to use against you. And if you ever dare to leave the church or dare to speak out, the folders are culled again for bad things they can make public about you in a smear campaign to black PR you. I read Vicki Aznaran’s deposition where she said it was one of her jobs to cull the folders to find dirt on pcs to be used against them and she also culled folders to omit and get rid of evidence from pc’s sessions that made the church look bad. Non stop shredding going on etc. I believe Vicki. Unfortunately the church got to her and waved a ton of money under her nose and then she mysteriously “recanted” later after she got the hush money payoff. This is what our IAS war chest buys.

        Reply

    • “And what about the Sec Checks that begin with, the auditor saying, “I am not auditing you.”

      This alone is evidence that the emeter is used as an interrogation tool and invalidates every claim the Church has made legally and in documents as to their use of the emeter and it’s purposes.

      They are NOT legally permitted to use the emeter for purposes of interrogation. Did you know that? Go research their legal docs and claims for the emeter.

      Reply

      • Once those P.C. folders are opened in a court of law and people can see for themselves how those emeters are being used in the Church, (For interrogations and thier own justice, NOT as religious device as they claim before the high courts) it is going to be ANOTHER FLAP.

        Also be aware, Phsycometry is still NEW and a field of science with vast applications. The Church has/is more or less used and using psychometry to abuse people at this point and practically run the science into the ground by now. The only place you find it being used, even out in the world, is by the Justice Department for lie detectors and stress tests in investigations. Not in any form of therapy. Psychometry is a wholly different field of science and application far removed from Scientology. In fact, psychometry was first widely dissemintated in the late 1940’s by Clause Bristol long before an emeter was ever used in Scientology. Hubbard imported it into his research but it was already known about and even being used by others. Psychometry is NOT a Scientology or Hubbard baby. It has been around since the early 1900’s.

        The Church is not authorized to use them as lie detectors and in investigative procedures to police people. There are REAMS of official documents the Church filed attesting over and over again these are used as “Religious devices” for HEALING and HOLY purposes.

        Right here. on their OWN web site they say about the meter: “The needle reactions on the E-Meter tell the auditor where the charge lies, and that it should be addressed through auditing.”

        http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-and-dianetics-auditing/what-is-the-emeter-and-how-does-it-work.html

        So when they set it up and say, “I am NOT auditing you”…….!!!!!!!!!

        Take PHOTOS of this web site!

        The sect restricts the use of the E-meter to trained Scientologists, treating it as “a religious artifact used to measure the state of electrical characteristics of the ‘static field’ surrounding the body”. The meter, when used by a trained Scientologist, is claimed to reflect or indicate whether or not a person has been relieved from spiritual impediment of past experiences. Officials within Scientology assert that the E-meter is intended for use only in sect-sanctioned auditing sessions and is in itself not a curative or medical device.

        It is also NOT supposed to be used to interrogate people or as an “internal justice device”. This is a HUGE with hold of the Church of Scientology!

        Every legal challenge they had to overcome to be able to USE this emeter legally, is invalidated when the systems for it’s current use are laid out in a courtroom.

        ANYONE who was tortured in ANY WAY through the use of these along the lines of punishment or justice has a legal claim.

        Reply

  13. A small point, Mike, but this letter only claims that “the Church has not filed suit against a media organization in more than two decades.” That’s a much more modest assertion than “We haven’t sued anyone” — though from your response, I gather that even this pared-down claim is untrue.

    I love the title “Scientology Sockpuppet”! I’m sure Ms. Pouw would wear it proudly, were she ever permitted to appear in public again.

    Reply

    • Yes, but you need to read this carefully. Every statement that comes from the church is a sleazy twist. The CLAIM made is that litigation is used against CRITICS. The church responds “we haven’t sued the MEDIA”… It is intended to create the impression the original statement was a lie. It is NOT a lie.

      Reply

      • I wonder if even the limited “haven’t sued the MEDIA” is correct. While they’ve been careful to only threaten legal action against English language media, they’ve been a lot more active suing in Europe outside the English-speaking world. Unfortunately that sort of news rarely makes it over the language wall.

        Reply

  14. As far as I can tell, the “dozens of inaccuracies” in Wright’s book are the church’s own fault. Wright documented fully what he asked the church to confirm or verify or clarify. And when the church refused, he went with the information he had. Of course, if the verification, confirmation or clarification would have involved TELLING THE TRUTH, the church would never have confirmed, verified or clarified. Trustworthiness, after all, is dependent on how many lies you can keep hidden. Right?

    Reply

  15. I literally burst out laughing when I saw “we go to great lengths to avoid litigation.” Anyone with half a brain knows she’s full of crap when she (or whoever actually wrote this) claims that.

    I’m disappointed though, she forgot to call the whistleblowers “bitter defrocked apostates.” You’re slipping “Karin”.

    Reply

  16. “We reserve the right to sue over defamation and egregious falsehoods”. What a good idea. It will be the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics if the Church does that . That way, the Church’s financial books of accounting can be produced through the discovery process, and we can all see whether or not it is a money making outfit. That issue will be resolved once and for all. And if the church wants to avoid litigation – why not just make the financial records public to prove the point to us all?

    Not holding my breath.

    Reply

    • Don’t be so optimistic. They will not sue. After Debbie Cook they know that the tide has changes. Suing someone is noe a guarantee that they will lose seven or eight figures in settlement.

      Reply

      • My post was intended to point out the folly of them threatening to sue – hence – not holding my breath. My tone in the post is 1.1 – to match the tone of their letter, in the hopes they “get it”. I agree they won’t sue. The discovery (disclosure of documents) will sink them – and they know it. They “avoid litigation” because they apparently have much to hide. If they did not, they would sue. When they are sued – they try to pull it back into their in-house arbitration procedure. They stand to lose everything if members knew the size of the bank accounts (if Debbie Cook is correct, and I have no reason to disbelieve her). They stand to lose everything.

        Reply

  17. Re: P.C. Folders.

    1. The content of P.C. folders are auditors notes. For the Church to assert that any part of what is in a P.C.’s folder is valid or true, the auditor that wrote the notes must be available to testify. The auditor is considered source on these notes, not the P.C..

    Or, if the P.C. is complaining, the P.C. is considered a valid source. If you have the P.C. and not the auditor available to testify as to the validity or accuracy of the auditors notes, the P.C.’s testimony will stand. Not the auditor that took the notes.

    2. According to Church scripture, “Dub In” is imaginary fantasy. If the Church also publishes content as fact, the burden is on them to prove it is not “dub in”.

    3. As far as hand written documents in the P.C.’s writing, emotional condition and circumstances are taken into consideration as to the validity or force of such documents. Also whether according to Church doctrine the person writing was dubbing in or not, according to “tone level” and how that aligns with the Church’s OWN scripture as to “handling of the truth” as laid out on SOS. The Church must provide evidence the P.C.’s tone was above 3.0 for their own members to regard any written documents by the P.C. as truth.

    Reply

    • In other words, auditors are the authors of the P.C. folders, NOT the P.C..

      For the Church to publish any part as fact falls back on the Church as the auditor worked under supervision and training by the Church. Your P.C. folders are not “your” P.C. folders. They are a book of auditor notes authored by someone else and held by the Church to the extent the Church believes the auditor was employed by them so it is their property.

      They have taken ENORMOUS liberties publishing notes made by auditors as truth, or publishing members who were under stress or forced to write anything, as truth.

      There is NO emotional blackmail the Church really has with your P.C. folders. These are records kept by employees and the source is the AUTHOR of any notes. People under emotional stress ordered or forced to write memos, such as you may find in ethics folders, those documents are considered invalid the same way a contract signed duress is invalid.

      Reply

      • Lastly, if you have been led to believe during your patronage in a Church, that P.C. folders are YOURS, through any such comments such as “I am waiting for YOUR P.C. folders” “We are waiting for YOUR P.C. folders” “YOUR p.c. folders are with the C.S.” You have every right to expect that if you now ask for the church to give you such folders, they will surrender them to you.

        The Church must also obtain PERMISSION, to keep these written notes, from the P.C. legally to even record them and have. If the Church never obtained a permission slip from you to keep notes, they did not legally obtain the notes kept in the folder. You notice the Catholic Church does not make written records of names and confessionals? The purpose of the P.C. folders is make T/A notes and keep records of what was written pertinent to the technology. NOT gossip or “confidential” matters. Any “confidential” matters recorded are a breach of trust.

        Reply

      • IF you NOTICE, in all of the training materials about auditor report forms, WHAT the auditor is to keep notes of, there is NO PLACE where it says to keep a record of confidences the P.C. says to an auditor.
        NO PLACE. Things like TIME, T.A., Processes run, Needle reactions like LFBD, etc. are kept.

        Anything maintained beyond what you expected from reading about auditor report forms was recorded illegally.

        Reply

      • The same thing goes for ethics folders. If you have been led to believe these are yours, by such comments from staff as: “I need to see YOUR ethics folder” “This will go into YOUR ethics folder” etc, you have a right to expect that you can ask the Church for YOUR “ethics folders” and they will be surrendered to you.

        Reply

    • On a side note, a psychotherapist’s session notes are owned by the client. The paper they’re written on, the folder, etc., is not, but the actual information is (which, under Californian law, the client has full access to). The therapist holds the privilege of confidentiality for the client, and cannot divulge any information to anyone without the client’s permission. This makes sense.

      Under Californian law, “penitent communication”, however, is described as “a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member’s church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.” — California Evidence Code, Section 1030-1034.

      Per this definition, how could either pc or ethics folders be privileged considering the number of third parties actually privy to the communication? The auditor has no duty to keep it secret by the simple fact s/he keeps a record of the communication and grants various third parties access to it – the large majority of which the “penitent” is NOT aware of.

      Reply

  18. THank you for the facts and rebuttal to Pouw’ and the church’s lies. As usual they hide behind semantics.

    Reply

  19. If “Karin Pouw”‘s letter was a Wikipedia article it would soon be full of {{Citation needed}} tags.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *