Actually, that would make a good wiki page, RO. A line of names, roles within the Sea Org/CoS and photos down one column and the CoS statements about them being a liar in another.
Tiny quoted: "Church of Scientology International: It would be wholly irresponsible for Lateline to broadcast these spurious and uncorroborated cla... Oh, wait." inb4COSsaysthatValeska/RamanacorroboratedtheirstoriesforLateline tee hee
Not to mention that they are being kept against their will on an asbestos infested ship that might give them cancer one day. That aggravates the situation even more.
Some of the ex-Scientologists, unfortunately. Certainly if there's anything illegal involved then I would think that's the case, or if they were signed under duress. I imagine some ex-s are concerned that Scientology could tie them up in court and drive them to bankruptcy even over a confidentiality agreement which has no legal merit. Given Scientology's record of aggressive litigation. That's why it'll be interesting to see what happens in this case: - If Scientology aggressively pursues this particular ex in court, then they score a big PR own-goal. - If they let it go, then other ex-es might get the courage to come out of the undergrowth with their own stories. I'm also interested in why Scientology have sent a lawyers' letter to ABC re the confidentiality agreement. I see no way that the confidentiality agreement (whether or not signed under duress) could bind a third-party (the broadcaster) who had no knowledge of it.
perhaps more of COS scare tactics? Everyone keeps saying that COS never learns, this is another prime example EDITED: even tho Latline received a letter from COS lawyers about their confidentiality agreement with Valeska, it was prolly just letting them know that there is one? And again her signing it under duress and with her past history aboard the Freewinds with Ramana validating her story... I don't think they COS stands much of a chance of winning? Maybe years ago they could have, but today? meh not so much
Just so that you know - Paulette Cooper's agreement with the Church of Scientology was also "amicable". hehe
Luckily for her, she lives in Australia and not in the US. There is no way an Australian court would uphold that confidentiality agreement. In any event, if Scientology suues her, it will only give the case more publicity.
yes but lets not forget that with the COS it's not about winning, it is about financially strapping the person by dragging them to court cases for years and also fair gaming them. Sort of the ol' "ruin them utterly" mentality. Hubbard said always attack never defend.
But there's no reason why Lateline should give a fuck because even if there were a valid confidentiality agreement (which there almost certainly isn't) then it isn't signed by Lateline. They're not contractually bound by anything their source signed. Evidently this was their view too, as they went ahead and broadcast it.
Imagine Scientology suing Valeska over a story in which she says David Miscavige ordered her to be imprisoned on the Freewinds. Then imagine who'd be called to answer questions under oath about the whole sorry, sordid saga. Then remember that David Miscavige is in a state of hiding.
Marcotai has finally shown in the VV comments. Want the tl;dr? Lying apostates are lying. And apostates. That lie.
If they sue her, that document becomes record and thus evidence of their criminal behavior. Blackmail? I would love to see one of these "documents". Oh wait, Sen. Xenu can prob get a copy, now that scn has admitted it's existence.
As if scientology's pissy responses ever need a counter response, I am always pleased when it does happen, especially like this with corroboration from an ex-senior rank.
maybe COS would love that a bit too much? Maybe moar like The Church of Scientology's Suppossed List of Lying Apostates (tl) Church of Scientology's Claims of Lying Apostates (tl) or something like that? edited: Church of Scientology Claims All These People Are Liars
Always attack, Never defend, Per L. Ron Hubbard policy. Scientology will keep on attacking its victims until there is nothing left to defend perhaps because Hubbard knew it was impossible to defend the indefensible, his cult's abuses.
I think they're too cowardly to attack the way they used to. They keep losing, and of course, when they do attack it means MASSIVE exposure on the internet and news, so it hurts them to go after folk like never before. Anonymous helps with that. Streisand Syndrome in effect. So any ex-$ci wanting to spill the beans - just videotape EVERYTHING and make sure it goes up on YouTube and that WWP gets to know about it. They will back off. They even backed off from Marty/Mike. Cowardly cult is losing even the ability to hide behind lawyers and PI's. Wonderful stuff!
This would be an easy project. Simply copy/paste the "Giant List of Exes Who Have Spoken Out" and change the name to "People who have left the CoS and have been called Liars"
lol yeah I know! right? but would be groovy to have a list with links to a person's story and a link to the church's reply next to it like Tiny said. There are many who have spoken out, (the count is now 1688 yay!!) but not a lot of exs have their own personal reply from COS. The more higher profile media stories like the SP Times ect... are the ones that COS replied to.
CoS claims that there are maritime regulations that they must hold the passports of crew. Can any sealawfags confirm/deny this? As well, what are the maritime regulations for someone to be considered crew of a vessel? I'm sure that it's pretty slack, especially for non-seaman cruise ship personnel, but wouldn't they need some kind of papers? (Unless some government down there is enforcing it, CoS probably fluffs it off as wog paperwork.) I wonder what their excuse is for holding passports at their land bases? D'OH!
The end is near from what I hear. Subpoenas are drafted, task forces enacted and only hours til COB gets a knob from a wog. If my post is true, I will thank baby Jesus (if I see him)
This is bullshit. Yes, in ports passports needed to be presented, but it does not mean that passports needed to be held by the captain while at sea, after the customs have checked the documents of the passengers.
Not a seafag, but a 15 minute google found occasional crew list requirements, and the ship's authorities can hold someone's passport if for some reason (ie stowaway) the captain intends to hand someone over to land authorities at next port. But not one single mention that crew members must surrender their passport while on ship as a matter of normal procedure. Besides, crew members' passports are checked individually at customs only if that crew member gets off the ship (just like any other passenger). For a captain to hold his crew's passports has no practical value, at all. Same logic applies: airline pilots on international flights don't hold the crew's passports either.
Is there some international maritime body or authority we can pressure to investigate the Freewinds? Maybe force a raid for a good reason? Asbestos testing? People trafficking?
Not entirely, I have crewed on more than one ship where we handed our passports over to the skipper as normal practise. This quote sums up usual practise, in my experience http://www.dockwalk.com/Essentials/DockTalk.aspx?g=posts&t=36730 but of course the real point is that no normal skipper would imprison a crew member.
Not a seafag or a lawfag, but IIRC that's somewhat true. (aka "Acceptable Truth") http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/PRINTMMV/MMVmarstev1.html The ship's Master (Captain) is responsible for providing crew member's passports to local officials on request. If the documents are unavailable, it's generally the Master that's fuqd, so the usual policy on most ships is that the crew surrender their passports when they board, and retrieve them when they depart. Maritime regs don't require it, but the regs do require that the passports not get lost, and preventing that is up to the Master or the ship's local policies. Now.... U.S. Law requires that the Master provide a crew member with some sort of ID acceptable to host country, for use when they take shore leave; but if the Master don't grant leave, crew wouldn't necessarily have any valid ID for wandering off on their own. Yeah. There's a LOT of room for abuse. Oddly though, most ships and most Masters don't seem to abuse the trust of their crew too badly, too often. U srs? Extremely un-slack. http://www.maritimesun.com/downloads/ship-master/TheShipMastersBusinessCompanion_part_B.pdf (UK flavoured, but most of it is pretty standard) However, non-seaman ship personnel are not crew. They are generally regulated as "passengers" by Maritime law. There's sure as heck no requirement for the Master to hold their passports. But if the FW Master refuses to hand them over to "deserting" Sea Org personnel, they might not have a whole lot of recourse - short of bailing and making a run for it (to local Immigration / Customs / Police agents, and then asking to be escorted to the Embassy of the country of their citizenship). It's a pretty big hurdle. Governments that don't enforce it: Somalia, Sealand, Andorra, Lesotho Governments that do enforce it: Everyone else LOL DONGS?
