Comments on: The Feshbach Brothers

By: Uncomfortable

Uncomfortable — Sat, 11 Mar 2023 10:30:16 +0000

“…he differs from his brothers by not being a Scientologist. “It works for them,” Dan said, “but it’s not my thing.”

So why ‘out’ him?

You could just simply say that the other brother does not adhere to Scientology?

This seems like a really nasty thing to do.

Should I “out” every person you have ever known because they had a connection to Scientology through you?

I dunno…

This is really uncomfortable.

You know your followers are going to go after him right?

Why have you done this?

By: Susan

Susan — Fri, 10 Mar 2023 02:10:06 +0000

In reply to Sue T.. Sue, thank you, thank you, thank you! I really needed a laugh and that did the trick. Scientology keeps on giving in so many ways

By: Sue T.

Sue T. — Thu, 09 Mar 2023 22:01:19 +0000

In reply to Susan.

Tony Ortega has posted it a bunch of times. Get ready to wash your eyeballs with bleach: https://tonyortega.org/2019/08/08/aftermath-puts-scientology-on-notice-in-its-own-spiritual-mecca/

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 09 Mar 2023 17:15:22 +0000

Ummm…how can you mention someone being famous for a pregnancy portrait and NOT share a link or the portrait? must see please!

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 09 Mar 2023 15:06:37 +0000

Kathy Feshbach still keeps a tight grip on other fundraisers within IAS. You can actually find a list of them via her social media friends and follows. Case and point, Natalie Simms. Natalie proudly claims on her LinkedIn to have raised 20 million dollars for charity and Human Rights!!! Just doesn’t say which rights and what charities of course. Natalie does have the kind of smile a used car salesmen would sell his soul to obtain. CofS Member’s LinkedIn bios are a breed all of their own.
How many of them list School of Hardknocks as their education? I have seen at least three profiles, that had it.
Human Rights!!!!
SofHK
Brand management
Are all dead give aways.

By: Aquamarine

Aquamarine — Thu, 09 Mar 2023 02:50:26 +0000

In reply to otherles. Yes, that was nifty, Mike :)

By: PeaceMaker

PeaceMaker — Thu, 09 Mar 2023 01:36:01 +0000

My understanding is that the Feshbachs really only made big money during a brief period when their strategy worked, through lucky timing. Short sellers can for instance always turn profits when markets are on a strong downward trend, sort of like selling ice cream on a hot day; the real trick is to make money the rest of the time, which is challenging.

They may have been mostly resting on their laurels financially, since they made their big killing. Tax problems over a few millions of dollars, suggest they aren’t the billionaires they once were – and probably aren’t that financially savvy, to have gotten themselves in a jam that the court looked very unfavorably on.

By: Stephanie Waymen

Stephanie Waymen — Wed, 08 Mar 2023 23:30:11 +0000

In reply to otherles. lol, good one!

By: Lawrence Toomajan

Lawrence Toomajan — Wed, 08 Mar 2023 21:37:25 +0000

I was thinking about this just the other day. I saw Kathy and Matt when I was at Flag. They seemed like (and still seem like) very ice cold people to me. But what I was really thinking about was how much money they had and how Scientology “LOVES MONEY”.

A person like Bob Duggan (a major player in Big Pharma); as long as he keeps bringing checks to the IAS, church staff can afford to steal money from public people’s accounts (my account for example) and say I am “PTS Type III” and never really donated any money in the first place.

In truth, Scientology is just corrupt to the core, whether it was ever an honest organization in the first place (which is doubtful). And, with Scientology, this makes a rather particular difference.

By: Yawn

Yawn — Wed, 08 Mar 2023 21:23:16 +0000

In reply to otherles. You got that right. Some axiom states, the most valuable particle there is, is admiration, or some such wording. Boy, to Scientology the particle of money rates the highest, above life itself. Scientology has blood on its hands in that regard.