contracts

Narconon: Dumping Penniless Drugs Addicts at Bus Stations


The shocking letter below was posted by RMYcroft at Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker. The letter details a complaint investigation conducted by the State of Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.

Essentially, a Narconon Center called Serenity Point Recovery dumped one of its “patients” at a bus station. This person had no money, no identification, and no means to get back home. The intake contract addicts sign at Serenity Point Recovery allows this Narconon-licensed “recovery” center to dump addicts at bus stations or homeless shelters under certain circumstances. Yet, drug addicts are not, by definition, mentally competent to either understand or sign contracts. Drug addicts need treatment because they are not thinking rationally and are making self-destructive life choices. Nevertheless, Serenity Point Recovery makes drugs addicts sign this reprehensible contract.

The letter below shows, once again, how the Church of Scientology and its related front groups use contracts to strip people of their rights. In this particular case, Serenity Point Recovery uses a contract to relieve itself of any legal or moral obligation to ensure the safe return home of any drug addict it expels from treatment.

This contract allows Serenity Point to literally dump a drug addict, a person who is not in a mentally competent condition, penniless into the street — and this after the addict’s family or an insurance company already has paid $30,000 – $40,000 for treatment. The question that needs to be asked of government regulators: Why doesn’t Serenity Point Recovery have a minimum legal obligation to set aside $500 for food and a bus ticket back home for an addict? That would be the humane thing to do to ensure a safe way for the addict to return home.

NarcononSerenity.Point

Note: Hover over the page to get the control functions to appear.

Why the Church of Scientology Gets Away with Flagrantly Abusing and Harming its Own Members and How to Stop It

(Note: This article was originally published at Tony Ortega’s Underground Bunker and is republished here with a new title)

inquisition-wheel

Jeffrey Augustine is back, continuing on his investigation of Scientology’s governing documents and what they mean for members and ex-members. This time, Jeff tells us about the thing every ex-member of Scientology should do as soon as he or she has decided to leave…

In America, freedom of religion is typically considered in positive terms: Americans are free to embrace or reject religion as they please. Monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, animism, and every other religious form under the sun are allowed to be practiced in America without any interference from the government.

Churches, temples, mosques, and ashrams are free to determine their own internal form of government, rules, and discipline. The government is prohibited from intruding into these ecclesiastical matters. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution guarantees these rights. In the legal case Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese, Etc. v. Milivojevich, the Court stated:

“…the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit hierarchical religious organizations to establish their own rules and regulations for internal discipline and government, and to create tribunals for adjudicating disputes over these matters. When this choice is exercised and ecclesiastical tribunals are created to decide disputes over the government and direction of subordinate bodies, the Constitution requires that civil courts accept their decisions as binding upon them.”

So long as the “rules and regulations for internal discipline and government” do not violate US law, the members of a religious group can be subjected to harsh ecclesiastical tribunals, severe punishments, and even the humiliating public disclosure of their sins and the US courts cannot do anything about it. This is the dark side of “freedom of religion.”

A really clear example of this is a court case that I think has a lot of relevance for Scientology. It was the 1984 dispute known as Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, which was ultimately decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

Marian Guinn joined the Church of Christ in 1974 in the small community of Collinsville, Oklahoma, where up to five percent of the local population belonged to the church. Several years into her membership in the church, Guinn, a single woman, began dating the town’s mayor. The mayor was a divorced man, and according to the Church of Christ, the only form of divorce condoned by the Bible was one caused by adultery, which was not the situation in the mayor’s case. So the church considered Guinn’s relationship with the mayor to be “unbiblical,” and the church elders demanded a meeting with her.

In that meeting, Guinn admitted that she was sleeping with the mayor, compounding the problem in the eyes of the elders. They told her to end the relationship, and she promised to repent. In a second meeting, the elders demanded that Guinn appear before the assembled church membership and publicly confess to the sin of fornication. Instead, she stopped attending the church.

So the elders then drove to her house for a third confrontation, and again demanded that she make a public pronouncement of her sin. They then sent her a letter warning that if she didn’t do what she was told, she would be withdrawn from the fellowship, and she realized that the elders intended to inform the congregation of her deeds. She sought legal advice, and her lawyer sent the elders a letter advising the not to discuss her private life with the congregation. Guinn also sent a letter making it clear that she had left the church and had rescinded her consent to be governed by its rules. This turned out to be crucial.

A few days later, the elders ignored her request to respect her privacy and read out a letter about her involvement with the mayor to the congregation. They also encouraged the church members to contact Guinn and ask her to repent. When Guinn met with one of the elders and again asked that her privacy be respected, he told her that her attempt to withdraw herself from the congregation was “doctrinally impossible” — as far as they were concerned, they still governed her and she could never leave on her own.

Guinn’s private life was not only discussed at her church, but the facts of her “sin” were also sent to four other local Church of Christ congregations to be read aloud to the members.

Marian Guinn then filed suit against the church for invasion of privacy and emotional distress. The Church of Christ argued in court that because its rules do not permit its members to ever resign or depart from the Church, the Church’s rules applied to Guinn even after she resigned. (A jury eventually awarded her $390,000.)

The Church of Christ, like the Church of Scientology, would like its members to think of it as the Hotel California: You can check out any time you want but you can never leave. However, this is simply not correct. The Guinn court offered an instructional and highly valuable ruling:

Just as freedom to worship is protected by the First Amendment, so also is the liberty to recede from one’s religious allegiance. In Torcaso v. Watkins the Court reaffirmed that neither a state nor the federal government can force or influence a person to go or to remain away from church against one’s will or to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. The First Amendment clearly safeguards the freedom to worship as well as the freedom not to worship.

As an aside, what this tells us is that the Scientologist who wishes to resign from the Church in order to escape its oppression and abuse is free to do so by sending the Church a written statement of resignation that includes a specific withdrawal of one’s consent to be governed by Scientology’s doctrinal rules. (And please note that I am not an attorney; this article may not be relied upon for legal advice. Please consult a licensed attorney in your state for specific legal advice about your particular situation.)

The point here is that anyone desiring to resign from a church and withdraw their consent to be governed by the rules of that church must make a positive act. This means writing a letter to appropriate church officials specifically stating one’s resignation and withdrawal of consent. In the case of the Church of Scientology one needs to resign from the IAS, the Church of Scientology International, and all Orgs where one has signed membership services contracts and had services; the positive act should be as broad and sweeping as possible.

The court record in Guinn is specific on the point of withdrawing consent (emphasis mine):

The Elders had never been confronted with a member who chose to withdraw from the church. Because disciplinary proceedings against Parishioner had already commenced when she withdrew her membership, the Elders concluded their actions could not be hindered by her withdrawal and would be protected by the First Amendment. Parishioner relies on her September 24, 1981 handwritten letter to the Elders in which she unequivocally stated that she withdrew her membership and terminated her consent to being treated as a member of the Church of Christ communion. By common-law standards we find her communication was an effective withdrawal of her membership and of her consent to religious discipline.

Consent is the crux of the matter in terms of religion in America. Once an individual consents to be governed by a church’s rules, that individual is fully subject to the rules and the punishments, however harsh they may be, for breaking those rules.

Once an individual resigns from their church and withdraws their consent to be governed by church rules, however, the church no longer has any rights to punish them. As the Church Discipline blog wrote of the Guinn matter:

This bears repeating. Once a withdraw has occurred the First Amendment protections don’t belong to the church, rather they belong to the individual. All religious activity in the United States is consensual, a person who publicly claims not to be a member of a church is legally not a member of that church and church discipline cannot continue without consent. A church attempting to discipline a person that has withdrawn can be found to be engaging in a form of harassment.

Where the Church of Scientology radically differs from every other church in America is that it has a malicious intake system in which new members are systematically stripped of their civil rights when they sign a series of waivers.

In a previous article in the Bunker, I laid out the four basic contracts the Church of Scientology uses to legally assert its First and Fourteenth Amendment religious protections against its own members.

In business terminology, the Church of Scientology “front loads” its membership terms and conditions. What this means is that Scientology ensures that it is legally protected at the outset from any potential or conceivable future legal consequences from new members by using secular contract law against new members. These contracts legally position the Church deeply behind the religious protections of the US Constitution.

The brutally honest answer as to why the Church of Scientology has gotten away with what it does to its members is simple: Scientologists consented to it. Even if that consent was coerced, not understood, given under compulsion or the threat of an SP Declare and disconnection, that consent allowed the Church to become the beast it is today. When Scientologists no longer consent to the Church’s brutality and abuse they leave by their positive acts of resignation or escape.

The Church of Scientology is like a rigged casino: Thanks to its Constitutional protections, the odds are absolutely and irrevocably stacked in favor of the house. Like all rigged casinos, people will have some wins in Scientology; but over time the house takes everything. That is how the game is designed. The only way out is to resign from the Church and to withdraw one’s consent to be governed by the Church of Scientology’s rules.

Beyond withdrawing your personal consent, the larger solution is to demand that the IRS and Congress act to revoke Scientology’s 501(c)3 tax exemption. Once Scientology loses its tax exemption — and this will happen — Scientology will be a business subject to civil and criminal penalties. As it now stands, Scientology is an evil Cult that gets away with murder. This must stop.

— Jeffrey Augustine

Lawyers In, Lawyers Out

My new insight into the Church of Scientology:

Lawyers In, Lawyers Out.

LILO.

LILO is what Scientology is actually all about. A person signs contracts on the way in, keeps signing contracts while in, and signs contracts on the way out. The Church later uses these contracts against a person if they sue after having realized what a malicious and greedy con job the entire Church of Scientology is.

Said another way, the Fair Game of Contracts is practiced inside the Church against all Scientologists. Scientology’s system of unconscionable contracts of adhesion is written and defended by scumbag lawyers like Bert Deixler. These contracts argue that the Church of Scientology is an unrestrained fascist capitalist business deliberately masquerading as a religion in order to maximize profits. Scientology’s lawyers are part of the false enrichment conspiracy operated for the sole benefit of David Miscavige.

Scientology’s lawyers do not care about the human suffering and misery inside the Church; they have gladly traded their souls for the big Scientology paychecks. It’s their Karma.

The website exposescientology.com has many Church of Scientology contracts listed here:

Scientology Contracts Research Index

The words of Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard need to be updated and corrected to read:

The way out is through lawyers.

*****

In terms of contracts, the Church of Scientology’s conduct is especially malicious in three areas:

1. The Church gives laypeople contracts and asks them to sign on the spot. The Church does not recommend or advise its own members that these contracts involve serious risks to parishioners and should be reviewed by an attorney.

2. The Church does not give people copies of the contracts they sign. The Church makes
people ask for a copy. If people ask, the Church may view them with suspicion and can order them into Ethics.

3. The Church uses bad faith contracts of adhesion to systemically strip its own members of as many Constitutional rights as possible, This is arguably illegal and conspiratorial as, imo,there is premeditation, self-dealing, and malice present on the part of the Church.

The Church of Scientology is filthy and a great deal of public and media focus needs to be put on its system of scammy contracts that even used car dealers would be too ashamed to foist upon their customers.

How Scientology Inc. Legally Cripples Its Own Members: The Four Unconscionable Contracts

The.Rack


Using the deliberately misleading and deceptive term “Church of Scientology,” Scientology Inc. likes to blather on about “disseminating the tech” in order to tell people just how wonderful Scientology is.

However, the actual Scientology documents presented in this essay will prove that Scientology Inc. acts with malice aforethought to legally cripple anyone foolish enough to join this incredibly fascist and dangerous organization.

The internal tyranny Scientology Inc. uses against its own members is the story of a cult taking a sledgehammer to the legal rights of Scientologists at every step of their path up what is dishonestly called the Bridge to Total Freedom.

Scientology Inc.’s internal fascism begins with a legally crippling intake system that is employed against all of its members when they first join the organization. This process begins by having the Scientologist sign four specific legal waivers. Each of these documents inherently demonstrates bad faith and unclean hands. I say this because the blatant purpose of these “unconscionable contracts” is to completely strip Scientologists of their legal rights. The Church has all of the power and the individual has no power. Moreover, the terms are unconscionable, exploitative, and perhaps even criminal in nature inasmuch as they constitute a de facto corporate conspiracy to deliberately deprive Scientologists of their civil rights.

Below are links to PDF’s of the four contracts; jpegs are also provided to show excerpts from each contract:

1. Religious Services Enrollment Application, Agreement, and General Release  Summary: One gives up their rights to sue Scientology Inc. or to have a lawyer represent them in any dispute with Scientology Inc. One further surrenders their right to a refund of any donations they have made to Scientology Inc. One additionally surrender any rights to have their family, agents, conservators, or estate sue the Church on their behalf. Excerpt:

Legal.Crippling.1

2. Agreement and General Assistance Regarding Spiritual Assistance. Summary: This is Scientology Inc.’s infamous Kidnap Contract that allows the Cult to kidnap any of its members and lock them up for an indefinite duration of time — and this without the kidnapped member having the benefit of any legal representation, legal hearing, medical evaluation, or medical intervention. All a Scientology Inc. “case supervisor” has to say is that a member has gone Type III. After this pronouncement, the member is bodily seized, locked up, and held against their will. This  happened to Lisa McPherson. Lisa became the victim of negligent homicide while being held captive in Scientology Inc.’s dangerous and quasi-felonious exercise in complete quackery known as the Introspection Rundown. Scientology Inc. might as well have locked her up in a James Arthur Ray sweat lodge and nailed the door shut. In the contract excerpt below, the Scientologist agrees to not sue the Church for any injuries or damage — and this release contemplates death — that might or could occur when one is being held as a religious prisoner in the Introspection Rundown. Excerpt:

Legal.Crippling.2

3. Agreement Regarding Confidential Religious Files. Summary: In this particular contract, a Scientologist forever signs away all their rights to ever read, inspect, review, or own their preclear folders.  Although Scientologists pay the Church of Scientology hundreds of thousands dollars to go up the Bridge, no Scientologist may ever read, inspect, review, or own their preclear folders. The Church owns these folders forever, Moreover, when a member leaves the Church and speaks out, OSA culls the person’s preclears folders to look for dirt on that person in an attempt to shudder them into silence. This is so shabby and illegal and yet it happens. Excerpt: 

Legal.Crippling.3

 4. Attestation of Religious Belief Regarding the Scientology Religious Film called Orientation. Summary: All new Church of Scientology members (raw meat) must sign this contract stating that they have seen the Orientation film. They must agree that they consider Scientology to be an actual religion. Excerpt:

 Legal.Crippling.4

 *****

Scientologist Anne Archer was very angry and indignant when she asked BBC journalist John Sweeney if he thought she looked brainwashed. I do not think Anne Archer is brainwashed. Rather, I think she is unaware of how legally handcuffed she is by Scientology Inc. Does Anne Archer understand that, on a legal basis, she is not now, nor has she ever been, a member of the Church of Scientology? The fact is that the “Church of Scientology” does not actually exist and never has. So what does that make Anne Archer? What is she fighting for?

Anne.Archer

/////