Customize

OSA PUBLICLY Threatens All Ex-Scilons with De-classifying Their PC Folders!!!

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by Anonynamefag, Jun 21, 2009.

  1. xseaorguk Member

    Re: OSA PUBLICLY Threatens All Ex-Scilons with De-classifying Their PC Folders!!!

    In which videos did they mention your confessions Smurfy?
    Must have missed that one!
  2. OHSHI Member

    Re: OSA PUBLICLY Threatens All Ex-Scilons with De-classifying Their PC Folders!!!

    I don't know.

    But what I was saying is the rant/rave article shouldn't be used as evidence that OSA is going to use p/c folders because it was written by a random person and we should all focus on the SP times article which has a spokesperson saying the same thing.

    i.e. we don't know if the person who wrote it is osa, so why not just stick with Tommy's threat which is just as good.
  3. CantPickaName Member

    Re: OSA PUBLICLY Threatens All Ex-Scilons with De-classifying Their PC Folders!!!

    compo-babar.jpg
  4. puffadder Member

    Re: OSA PUBLICLY Threatens All Ex-Scilons with De-classifying Their PC Folders!!!

    Here's your proof that both the staffers at CoS and the members of CoS know about the ownership, distribution and confidentiality about the files.

  5. Anonymous Member

    bump for current lawsuits, demanding Scientology release pc folders to pc.
    • Like Like x 9
  6. moarxenu Member

    FREE ALL TEH PC FOLDERZ NAO!!!
  7. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Confidential PC files, that just about everyone sits around and laughs at, are some of the cult's bestest blackmail material. Used with relish by OSA and other CoS henchmen against anyone who dares to leave or/and criticizes cult and insane flounder.... be a real shame if they were court ordered to return all files of people requesting them~ bye-bye leverage. <<< 'They' fight this tooth and nail, allatime, every time.
    Fucking pathetic bunch of shysters *insert huge barfing smiley here of choice*
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Quentinanon Member

    Anyone who declares their permanent departure from the scientology organisation should be able to take ownership of their auditing files upon written request. It serves no constructive purpose for the cult to hold onto them.
    They just cannot let go of anything, be it a person or file. OT Powerz.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. thesneakster Member

    My two or three cents worth here: Any threat - or accomplished fact - whether public
    or private, of breaking "Priest-Penitent Confidentiality" which can be provably traced
    to any staff member of the Church of Scientology ( and/or hireling or volunteer
    working under staff direction ) should be entered into evidence in this case to
    demonstrate their lack of good faith in their arguments against producing these
    folders for the plaintiff.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist

    Addendum: examples of confidential PC folder data being posted to the Internet
    by staff or hirelings/volunteers working under staff direction exist on virtually every
    single OSA anti-critic smear campaign web site.

    Additional Addendum: their religious argument that producing the folders would
    reveal "confidential" scriptures (ie, the OT Levels) is entirely bogus, due to the
    fact that said scriptures can now be found all over the Internet.

    caveat: I am not a lawyer
    • Like Like x 3
  10. DeathHamster Member

    Even if it can't be provably traced, it seems to me that by claiming "Priest-Penitent Confidentiality" on the files, CoS is assuming a responsibility to keep them confidential.

    If the contents appear on a smear web site, even if it was by "some unknown person", then CoS has failed that responsibility, and the burden to show that it wasn't their fault is on them.
    • Like Like x 3
  11. You mean this?

    [IMG]

    PS: Hobson, do not try to "agree" with us as a method of "handling". If OSA is using pc infoz is because LRH said to do so ... what is your take on that?
  12. jensting Member

    Well, I rather thought that the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology had, in the past, prevaricated by stating that the documents from which embarassing personal details had been drawn were *NOT* the confidential folders. (No dox at my fingertips, althought that would be a good little project - try looking around something like the "rebuttal" to the SP Times article series and organisation spokespersons/lawyers answering questions about this.)

    This might wash in a strict legal sense, but is worth highlighting for the possibility that the files the organisation is trying to hold back in the Laura D case are similar to the files they admit to mining to some up with the embarassing details of sex lives for the SP Times article rebuttal. This kind of inconsistency is the kind of thing they used to get away with.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. jensting Member

    Well, I was under the impression that Joel Phillips was behind RTF, so there's nothing "persons unknown" about that one. http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=128531
  14. a video for johnny after a saturday night fever
    hello sailor sea org young men hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    hum instead of flying high he should be sailing hummmmmmmm
  15. I personaly fucked a squirrel years ago it was good
    I 'd love to fuck his mate again
    hello pierre du bzarrea
  16. PIERRE DU BARREAU is a red haired squirrel
    it works only in french for translation
  17. DeathHamster Member

    Whatever input Joel Phillips has, RFW is under the direct control of CoS. That should be easy to prove by obtaining (with a legal crowbar) the records of who was paying for Prolexic protection in 2008, and later, Akamai distributed mirroring. (Both are expensive.)

    Due to DDoS, CoS sites moved under Prolexic protection:
    TSnapshot-01-31-08.jpg~original.jpg
    • Like Like x 3
  18. Jeff Jacobsen Member

    Dox?
  19. RightOn Member

    but if they ever did decide to hand over ex member's PC folders, wouldn't there be TONS of papers "lost" and anything incriminating gone?
    Why would they agree to incriminate themselves? Whether it is a court order or not. To them it's just wog law that is meant to be broken.
  20. jensting Member

    • Like Like x 2
  21. Anonymous Member

    Smurf was banned from wwp. If you'd like an answer to your request, he can be reached via esmb or failbook.
  22. jensting Member


    aaand, here we go. From http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientologys-response-to-church-defectors-total-lies/1012138
  23. thesneakster Member

  24. jensting Member

    ehrm, sorry, I don't get a 404 - I get put where I expect to go.

    Anyway, the Google search string was "SP Times violence scientology rebuttal amy scobee sex confidential" - I admit Mr Google does know what I like ;)

    EDIT: Oh, and in this case the SP Times does not record the lawyers / sopkesholes even prevaricating about the "confidentiality" of the folders, they just say the organisation went ahead and disclosed the information.
    • Like Like x 2
  25. thesneakster Member


    OK, it's working now. WTH ? :confused:

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist
  26. Anonymous Member

    link works for me too

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins