Possibly Helpful Advice

Including what we found in Scientology before it became a cult

Why fixing the Church of Scientology is not an option

Some Confront Required  :(

The Current Church of Scientology


The church organization was designed as a top down command and control system. Even the “justice system” is weighted so that the unsupported word of almost any Sea Org person bears more weight than that of a trained OT public person.

Once a suppressive individual gains control of a top down organization through a coup, there is no way to unseat this person, especially if they have carefully discredited all who might have challenged them.

David Miscavige has managed to do this and has supplanted LRH as the goal maker for Scientology and has replaced any theta goals with MEST goals designed to flow money and power to himself.

Read “An Essay on Management” 9 Jan 51 for a full description.

Scientology public and staff are indoctrinated from their first days in the organization that Source is not to be questioned nor are the motives of the group itself to be questioned. At the highest levels, this translates into following orders and taking actions that are illegal, inhumane, and immoral without question if the need arises.

As the public person moves up the Bridge, they are convinced to make more agreements that limit their freedom of choice. If they achieve higher levels of perception and greater understanding of life as they progress up the Bridge, they are simultaneously forced to deny what they are able to perceive.

They may gain a greater understanding of life, but must learn to ignore or not-is invalidation and abuse if they are to continue up the Bridge. This degradation is deliberate as OTs are notoriously hard to control once they can think for themselves.

Replacing David Miscavage will not change the church culture which was designed by Ron himself. Ron was a benevolent dictator most of the time and the church produced viable products until Ron went into a long decline and no longer had first-hand information to work with. Church policies will reflect the sanity of the person holding the top spot. There has never been an effective check and balance system for the church.

It cannot stand up to the scrutiny of the Internet and may possibly implode in the years to come.

The Future:  Networked Independent Practitioners and Groups
(Name to be determined by the survivors)

Independent Field Network

Independent Field Network

I see the field outside the church evolving into a network of practitioners and groups with varying technologies but some common agreements on quality of service, mutual support, and mutual defense.


I see these mutual agreements being the result of an Open Source movement to develop field policy for the benefit of all practitioners and their clients. I do not see much of the current Green and White Policy being included.

Internet Organizations have some properties that brick and mortar organizations cannot match. They are independently run nodes that are connected to every other node on the network. Connections are determined by need, not by orders from a higher source of power. Any terminal in any node can access any other terminal in any other node and if denied, can search for information about that terminal using a search engine.

There is a continuing search for information and communication about that information so that perverted comm lines get exploded almost immediately.


It is becoming apparent that much of the technology that produced desirable results was not created by LRH and it would be appropriate to research these areas and recover anything that was lost when LRH claimed it as his own.

Study Tech was developed and tested by others. NOTS was developed and tested by others. An Open Source spiritual technology research effort might attract many of our senior technical people who could be revitalized by the prospect of finding the full set of workable technologies and testing them for use.

Agreements can be hammered out quickly on a cooperative basis. Organizational hierarchies can be formed on the basis of abilities and and needs instead of by executive fiat. There is a constant review of published works so that mistakes and poorly conceived ideas can be caught at an early point.

The Open Source approach to development attracts those who want to get things done. Someone will probably come up with a bright idea for Internet training centers offering distance learning and coaching for auditors and practitioners of every stripe. Coached meter drills can be done with a webcam setup to show the auditor and meter.
Supervision of study and doll drills can also be done remotely.

Russian auditors are already doing remote auditing and remote Case Supervision,so I see no reason why a motivated team can’t come up with ways to use the internet and extend counseling in ways that have not been considered before.

The future of the field

If the driving goal is to develop a workable technology and workable policies that can be adjusted to meet market needs and to safeguard Clients and Practitioners, I think it will be accomplished in a relatively short time. The goals must include:

1. A way of estimating what can be delivered to a client
2. Delivering what is promised
3. A means of handling failures to deliver so that they do not repeat and that customer satisfaction can be obtained.

I see the key is that we in the field need to act in a coordinated fashion so that we can present a united front to handle regulatory bodies and competitive organizations who might seek to license us or to drive us out of business.

It promises to be an interesting time. I’m glad I’m here to see it!

Number of views:386


lunamoth  on March 1st, 2010

With such a network and the resultant degree of communication, personal freedom and some real pioneer spirit (which I see in your post), this is the sort of thing that could change the direction of the culture.

David, do you see the continued delivery of a “bridge,” the way LRH did? I’m not personally interested in that at this point, but I am wondering. And if so, wouldn’t the current bridge require a great deal of technical scrutiny to weed out the adulterations, and to return it to the version that seems to have gotten some gains for people?

My god, the amount of work this all represents is mind-boggling, but the result could be magnificent. And if this is/has been your game, what an exiciting time to be playing!

Robert Worstell  on March 1st, 2010

The point of a bottom-up organization is a sensible one, and should be encouraged. Certainly in this age of Internet social networks, it becomes ever more possible.

Scn probably went off the rails when KSW was issued. Because that policy thwarted and discouraged people contributing to the knowledge and workability of the subject.

Practically, Hubbard would have been nowhere had he not borrowed from a vast amount of earlier philosophers and religions in order to compile his “only road out”. Practically, he threw away the bulk of some very workable methods in order to cherry-pick his copyrighted and trademarked “route”. Meanwhile also crediting Buddhism and Christianity for being two of the most civilizing influences the world had known.

So it is really our time to take up the burden of proof as regards Scn – and make it into a viable belief-system. Or simply move on. Each to their own.

One correction I would make in that triangle graphic above: change the word “losers” to “dupes” and it would be more accurate. Dupes can realize the errors of their ways and get back to improving their lives.

Chuck Beatty  on March 1st, 2010

Hi Old Auditor,

Sadly, or not, though, the people who were actually around LRH in the end, and the people LRH was still sending orders to, and other comm, in his final years, it is overwhelmingly clear that LRH had NO intention of just blowing up the whole movement into a field auditor free for all.

The main problem is David Miscavige.

Once he’s out of the way, possibly the main movement can heal.

Dismissing ALL of the administrative bureaucracies that are LRH’s creations, mind you, is of course any Scientologists true right to NOT be part of.

You can just be field auditors, you can set up exchange amongst yourselves, you can selectively use and do what you wish with what LRH wrote.

But that isn’t particularly fully LRH’s viewpoint, unfortunately.

“What would Ron do?” He certainly wouldn’t be doing what Miscavige is doing, obviously.

I would recommend that faithful Scientologists who are kicked out or who’ve quit the main movement, that they just ignore the main movement, and only disseminate to the field of the main movement, so the field know they can join the independents, like is already being done.

And those who have bright ideas how to enlighten the main movement to wise up and finger Miscavige and eject Miscavige, then those people should carry on with whatever legal ethical plans they might have to help get Miscavige ejected.

I’d say the independents have won already, just do your Scientology and keep letting official Scientology know that you are out there doing Scientology too, and keep doing what you are doing.

I think eventually, more average public in the regular world will come to know independent Scientologists and be influenced by you independents.

You’re certainly freer and more “Grade 0″ releases compared to any official Scientologists, ironically.

good on going public! Good luck!

Chuck Beatty
ex Sea Org staffer, 1975-2003

Old Auditor  on March 1st, 2010

Thanks for your comments. There is an awful lot of work to be done, but I have seen what can be accomplished in a true Open Source environment.

Unless you have seen one at work, it is hard to believe that people can be so motivated and they are usually contributing their time for free! No coercion or beatings are required to get back to back all-nighters on projects.

If all you have been exposed to is the Sea Org version of motivation, it is a revelation to see what self-motivated individuals can achieve in a good cause. I have written more about this in Danger Quicksand – Have A Nice Day, which is an unconventional guide to surviving corporate employment. Free download at bentcrowpress.com

In response to the question, “do you see the continued delivery of a “bridge”, I experienced good results from most of my auditing and no results from some parts, because they were not charged in any way.

I would hope that the technology will get a thorough review and that it will morph into a set of processes and rundowns that can be completely tailored to the individual’s needs.

One of the most important changes I wish to see is validation and rehab of past life auditing.

Many of my PCs had been in Dianetics or Scientology before this lifetime and some had contacted confidential OT material as well. They did very well as long as I was auditing them and were thoroughly invalidated when they were sent to higher orgs. It was quite unfortunate that at least one CS in the LA area had no experience in past life scientologists.

I think the state of Clear needs to be devalued as a meaningful milestone to be approved or disapproved by anyone or any central authority.

If a person is able to handle his bank and is running engrams by inspection, he can claim the right to run higher levels without any further discussion and can attest to Clear on his own recognizance.

If it turns out that his estimation is incorrect, he is run on the appropriate processes to get him to that state and he proceeds on his way.

Similarly, quad grades might be the appropriate gradient for a new PC, with a proviso that he can run expanded grades when he encounters difficulty in communicating, handling problems, ARC breaks, or is making others wrong.

The whole subject of ethics handlings needs to be cut down to the basics of getting someone up through conditions so they are doing well in life ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN DESIRES.

Ethics handlings should be voluntary, except that auditors should have the right to refuse service to anyone who is refusing to apply conditions and is not making case gain.

FPRD auditing is one of the most enjoyable and powerful auditing one can get when it is done correctly and FNs are called standardly, not “GAT stare at the needle style”. It will put the PC at CAUSE in areas of his choice and will proof him up against amazing amounts of suppression.

Rundowns like FPRD, HRD, etc. should be polished up and the arbitraries removed and should be promoted for the exceptional gains they produce.

I think much of the existing Bridge can be presented on a roll your own bridge to Freedom basis. You should be able to handle the things you want handled and leave the rest alone unless it is a prerequisite to doing something you need and want.

There are many things mentioned by LRH that are no longer on the bridge like OT drills and processes to bring up OT perceptions. I think these may already be available outside the church and these should be integrated into the Independent’s Bridge to Personal Freedom.

I have more ideas, but I think you get what I am envisioning for the future. If you add your postulates to mine and take action as you see fit, we will see this future start taking place as we watch.

Plain Old Thetan  on March 1st, 2010

I’m still on the fence about any apparent hopelessness of fixing the current situation.

The problem I see with the network diagram you’ve sketched out is stuff like: who publishes books? Who reproduces lectures? Are there still booksales campaigns or infomercials?

I don’t see it having the problems we have now, like who pays for the ludicrous stage sets at Int events, who takes tithes and returns huge impractical programs.

I am also concerned about losing whatever tech might be usable in the levels OTVII and OTVIII. And, for that matter, all the way up through OT XV and OTXX, which Ron references in the Expanded Dianetics lectures.

And, being a longtime auditor and C/S, I’m kinda stuck on the notion that “there’s a correction list for everything”.

Admittedly, it may take a helluva correction list, assessed over and over, to get Scientology and Scientologists to where there’s an F/Ning assessment.

Paul Adams  on March 2nd, 2010

That idea of an Open Source technology effort is excellent. It is very hard to get others to try out something different (I have found!), but LRH sometimes used others’ work without attribution and it wasn’t always even the best of their work in the first place. So the “something different” sometimes wasn’t developed by LRH in the first place.

For example, here is an article by John McMaster, “The Story of Search & Discovery”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2090745/Tech-History-1


OldAuditor  on March 2nd, 2010


That article is fascinating and is only one of several that everyone should read to gain a better understanding of the real history of the tech.

Here is another article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5031991/Tech-History-2

I plan on posting a series of articles about “borrowed” technology so that I can give credit to those who actually developed the tech that works.

When I write about “purifying , the tech”, I am referring to the fact that I got fabulous results from some of the tech and I want to find out now who developed it and what did Hubbard leave out when he appropriated it without crediting the discoverers.

I hope to draw upon the experiences of those who were there and observed what was going on even if they did not write about it at the time.

We could look at the final result as recovering the “True Workable Technology” before it was “interpreted” by Hubbard.

By the way, each time I write this heresy, there are fewer fireworks and more originations and cognitions. :)

lunamoth  on March 2nd, 2010

Plain Old Thetan

I think some of the answers might occur to us once we change our idea of what is necessary to make scientology tech accessible. The internet really changes everything.

Before the internet, infomercials and book campaigns were necessary to reach the widest possible audience. With the internet, a simple mention on a popular blogsite can cause the same effect as a multi-million dollar promotional campaign did in the ’70′s. Because, with the net, communication is instaneously to millions of terminals at once. Communication remains availabled on the individual’s own schedule, and links from one site to the next make access for those not frequenting the originator’s blog, instantaneous. Info goes “viral” overnight.

As for printing books, who needs books when you can download the tech into you own home to either
printer or kindle? OK, well, I really like books, too. But the point is that lack of the kind of books we’re used to would not present a stop to this sort of thing succeeding.

I believe that Old Auditor’s vision is not only possible, I think it’s the likeliest way for this all to unfold. “A Brave New Frontier” is being created by a confluence of events, namely the existence of the internet and the destruction from within of the church proper. I think it’s a kind of revolution, and could potentially be viewed in decades to come as the turning point that led to the biggest expansion ever in the history of the tech.

Paul Adams  on March 2nd, 2010

Old Auditor: “We could look at the final result as recovering the ‘True Workable Technology’ before it was ‘interpreted’ by Hubbard.”

Hmmm. How far does your heresy extend? In addition to cleaning up what was developed 40 or 50 years ago do you also intend the Open Source effort to include 21st century discoveries? :)

OldAuditor  on March 2nd, 2010


The Open Source effort should include 21st century discoveries and I have stated this in several of my posts including
this one: /?p=304

I have been a heretic all my life. I think it comes from my training as an engineer. :)
If something works, I really don’t care what the label is or what degrees the inventor doesn’t have.

Workable technology is hard to fake and is something that you can evaluate on your own,
if you dare the wrath of those in positions of authority.

I really don’t care if 21st technology includes placing hot stones on the naked back as long as it produces repeatable results.

Actually, the hot stones procedure makes for much better ad images than a touch assist.
Look in any alternate medicine/ alternative lifestyle magazine and you will see what I mean.

I have not had time to look into the practices you have developed but they are on my list. Anything that facilitates self-processing is a good thing in my mind.

We are too early in this game to set boundaries of what we will use and what we will not.

Paul Adams  on March 2nd, 2010

Old Auditor: “We are too early in this game to set boundaries of what we will use and what we will not.”

Excellent. You’ll go far. ;)

Jim Logan  on March 5th, 2010

Old Auditor and Paul Adams,
I read John McMaster’s description of the research for the S&D questions. To ascribe ‘invention’ of S&D to John is pretty far beyond what he actually describes. The question he worked is borderline as to a Standard Listing Question and he had an MU on what a ‘Represent List’ is. His MU leads to a sort of ‘term’ GPM item, with the first L&N (Non-Standard) giving him the opp-term.

S&D is to find the right SP on the case, not ‘run’ a GPM. The PTS RD uses the refined and more accurate Standard L&N questions in ’3 S&Ds’ and then when the right SP is found per the Laws of L&N, the ‘predisposition’ is handled by the remainder of the PTS RD.

By all means, if you want to use non-standard listing in violation of the Laws of L&N, and try and run a GPM with an S&D, have at it. Me, I think I’ll stick with the PTS RD.

OldAuditor  on March 5th, 2010

Jim, I appreciate your missionary zeal to defend the one true faith but you have misduplicated what I wrote.

I wrote: I would hope that the technology will get a thorough review and that it will morph into a set of processes and rundowns that can be completely tailored to the individual’s needs.

The accounts of those who actually did research on the tech deserve to be researched thoroughly. If you feel that if Ron wrote it, you believe it and the matter is settled, that is your perogative.

Contrary to what is written in KSW 1, there were many contributions to the technology and Ron had his reasons for not acknowledging them. Ron’s version of the technology and his policies are why were are here with a sick church and a madman in charge. I have written about this elsewhere and will do so again until the entire story unfolds.

Uncovering actual contributions comes before evaluating them. If there is a right way and a wrong way to free people from the bank and from their prior decisions, it should be subject to discussion and TESTING before we attempt to label something as standard or non-standard.

The goal for many of us is to recover a workable technology. That is not what is in use in the church today. Your reality may differ but I think we have the same end goal in mind.

I also agree with Plain Old Thetan who said, And, being a longtime auditor and C/S, I’m kinda stuck on the notion that “there’s a correction list for everything”.

Jim Logan  on March 5th, 2010

I apologize if what I wrote gave the impression I was commenting on anything other than the John McMaster article and that specific point of tech, S&D, as it was developing and as it developed to its culmination in the PTS RD.

That is also the context of the term Standard Listing Question. As you know, L&N is a very exact technology, researched and refined over the period from the late 50′s through all the GPM research, so-called ‘Tiger Drilling’ and so on. The Laws of L&N were gleaned from a tremendous background of tested actions. These aren’t just ‘tossed off’, they are hard won technical facts.

Again, it was not my intention to comment on the broader area of your posting, but the mistaken statement or suggestion that John McMaster ‘invented’ S&D and to point up that his own description of what he did encounter and ran, aside from being violations of precise Laws of L&N, have the phenomena he came across and reported (i.e., as per the research auditing he was doing in the first place)are encompassed thoroughly by the developed PTS RD. Hence, John’s exhortation to use his questions, MUs and all, would be a concern for a person seeking workable technology on the subject of S&D as it was thoroughly, and subsequently, researched and developed by LRH.

An analogy on the subject, S&D, in my own study of percussion and drumming: Murray Spivak didn’t ‘invent’ a fulcrum or angular velocity or its scope of usefullness, but he did isolate its applicability to manipulating a drumstick by viewing other’s attempts at doing so. ‘His’ technology works so I use it, and I teach it to others. I’m sure those others, with sufficient background and experience would someday possibly ‘invent’ the same thing. It would work because it isolates the exact mechanics. Once done, there is the proverbial ‘mousetrap’but far be it from me to curtail the search for a ‘better mousetrap’.

Dmarie  on March 5th, 2010

The CO$ is dead! Accept it. It’s delusion to think other wise. The general public & all of us on all of these forms see the church as an evil cult. Hitler can’t be PRed in a good light & niether can the CO$. Hard to confront…. I know!

OldAuditor  on March 5th, 2010

Dmarie, I would say the CO$ is beyond the point of recovery and its continued existence will eventually resemble an organism kept alive on life support.

Right now, it still has teeth and can strike out at the unwary or the clueless. If you think of it as an animal with rabies, you will deal with it in the right frame of mind. (Do not let it get its teeth in you.)

The CO$ is a dinosaur from the pre-Intenet age and its vital signs are dropping swiftly, but there are pockets of live theta in the dinosaur and they should be extracted before they succumb to the internal corruption.

The only theta in the church comes from the few staff members and public who have not succumbed to the Miscavige indoctrination. Treat them with care and grant them enough beingness that they will cognite and exteriorize from the church.

OldAuditor  on March 5th, 2010

Jim, I understand.
Thanks always for your well researched comments.

At this point in my research, I am fishing up all accounts I can find of those who contributed to the tech without trying to sort out the relative merits of one approach over others. I can envision years of interesting research ahead for those who desire to participate.

Jim Logan  on March 5th, 2010


Listen, on the CofS, how about the analogy of a preclear/preOT with epurps in restim. I’d just do some FPRD/EXDN/Ls and handle the aberration rather than throw the whole person in the dumpster. Even the SP case has tools for it, if it will sit still long enough, and cease PT overts long enough, to get a case gain. Besides, organisms, especially group organisms seem to be pretty tenacious. I’m opting for ethics, then tech, then admin on this 3D organism. I wouldn’t be counting on it dying off anytime soon and I’ll bet you it’ll be around in one form or other for many moons to come.

Mary McConnell  on March 5th, 2010

Dear David,

It was refreshing to find a website that actually gave some explanations to what might constitute the term ‘independent scientologist’.

I have been out of Scientology for nearly 15 years, having been a dedicated member for 18 years previous to walking away forever.

I volunteer in helping people who have been ripped off by illegal regging and marketing of Narconon and related front groups. I do this because lawyers usually won’t take they cases unlesss they pay alot of money upfront. Usually these people have given some or all of their life savings and barely have any more money or credit to get their loved one into another rehab facility after recognizing they have been defrauded or that their loved one’s addiction was not handable by Narconon.

I have been an opponient of scientology practices, policies and technology since arriving on the internet to look at what I was indoctrinated to not see. That was in 2006. I personally have no interest in using any of the tech or admin but I have learned in the last year to be more even respectful of those who have a reverence for them.

I consider myself well versed and able to express my opinions in a logical fashion without tearing into someone who disagrees with me. Having been very loyal to the church in the past, I know it takes time to find ones way back to thinking for themselves without interference from past indoctrinations.

I can see that you have been looking at matters for some time and your research is such that you are not only willing to see the outpoints in both Tech and admin but you are making important suggestions that help bring the focus to what most people yearned for from Scientology. Your discussion on the tech and how it came to be is something I have known for years but many do not know these facts.

I do, however, disagree that removal of DM is impossible. I see that you are probably not even interested in seeing the church recovered from all that is going on but many others desire their church back. To state that there is no way to remove DM is to be in like mind with others who have given up on the possibility when no one had ever tried!

Suing CST or the church itself is something Mark Rathbun dismisses. I think his ‘opinion leader’ status has lead to the possibility of it being done being all but extinguished. With enough enough independents, something can be done on this level to oust him.

There is a process to remove DM or anyone else which is outlined in the Church of Spiritual Technology papers obtained from the IRS and court records which are findable on the net. Many of the docs on CST can be found on xenu-directory.net

Every 2 years CST is required to file form SI-100 with the Secretary of State in CA. That form muct contain the names, titles and addresses of CST’s corporate CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SECRETARY & CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER.

All independents have to do to start the ball rolling to get DM removed is to find out who the current officers of Church of Spiritual Technology are from their State of CA corporate filings of record under their CA non-profit corporate ID Entity Number: C1074287.

Then file a certified letter stating the concerns to CST and it’s officers and registered agent of record, admonishing them for not not doing their job and placing the Church of Scientology at risk by allowing DM to run matters. Details on what DM is doing are important and should be specific. The letter should include a notice that legal measures will be taken to enforce the intent of the corporatation as created.

Since most critics have never had any personal desire to save the church as a whole, this avenue has not been explored in detail but it should before the decision is made to not go the legal route.

Legally, this is what one does when a corporation is violating some agreement it had, especially a fundamentally legal declaration, which CST has done.

My only other concern, not just with what you have said but with what other independents have stated in the past on the use of the tech outside the realm of the organization of Scientology is the issue of using it without copyright authorization.

Anyone using it in the field without authorization is subject to legal remedies. Anyone charging for it muct follow cutative prices policies or rist being sued. The freezoneers have known this and have taken precautions in years past after others were sued. Within the last several years, interest in independent scientology outside the church has grown due to people speaking up and many others leaving the church.

It seems to me that the importance in doing things in a legal manner has not been spoken of enough and that there is a consensus among many that they have an inherent right to practice outside the legal agreements made with the church when one trained. I am concerned that while it may seeem quiet, that the church may well be preparing to attack Marty and others for using the tech either for money without legal right or using it in violation of agreements signed in the past. I have yet to see large scale discussions on how to go about doing things in a way that does not cause problems in the future.

Again, what must be done to get DM removed concerns informing CST about DM’s squirreling, the general misuse of staff, and insisting CST rectify it’s failure to abide by the agreements made upon incorporation to preserve the tech and structure of powers. And suing CST if they do not act on what has been reported.

Even if I don’t agree that the tech has any value, even if I think it’s dangerous, I believe in people having the right to redress wrongs.
Working matters out with CST has the advantage of bypassing DM in addressing concerns and provides the possibility of coming up with agreements for people to be able to practice scientology the way in their lives without retribution and as it was before DM got ahold of it an squirreled it.

Best wishes,

Jim Logan  on March 5th, 2010

Excellent points. One would do well to study the case of Enid Vien available at this link http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf56.html and also copyright laws of respective countries. There are issues of ‘fair use’ and issues of ‘idea or processes’ and the law relative to them.

The points on CST are well taken.

Old Auditor  on March 5th, 2010


Thanks for your perspective on this important issue.

While I find it hard to believe that CST is not complicit in David Miscavige’s activities, I agree that suing CST as you describe may be the best way to go.

You may be reading things into this site and others that are not true. Most of us are willing to see the church saved, but we don’t have the resources to waste on a project we are not equipped to deal with.

You suggest that “All independents have to do to start the ball rolling to get DM removed is …” I say fine! You know what is required and are hot to go, so get on it and let us know how it goes!

I don’t see you saying, “contact me and we’ll organize a team…”. What I see is you saying, “Let’s you and them fight.” If it matters to you, why not put some skin in the game?

One of the benefits of the Internet is that you are able to create your own bully pulpit to champion any cause you wish. Your current website has stories of the criminal acts by the church but it could have a game plan and its own forum for pushing the suit of CST as you describe.

I studied the CST and its history for many hours and it looks like a Gordian Knot from here. Three non-scientology lawyers who are the top decision makers for the church of scientology and are buried behind screens of directors and trustees.

If you think a frontal attack will work on this stronghold, I would have to ask if you have talked to Larry Brennan or any of the others who are now out and were involved with the CST when they were in.

To make a long discussion short, we all have our strengths and weaknesses and we all have a certain amount of resources to work with and to contribute.

I have set myself on a course of discovering what can be saved from the extant body of scientology tech and policy. That takes up many hours of every day. It is a good use of my training and abilities.

Marty has outlined what he is trying to accomplish and has a lot on his plate. Contrary to what some seem to think, he has not signed up to be a general purpose savior of the Church of Scientology.

Others are rallying the troops and disseminating what independence is to the world at large. Still others are demonstrating and keeping the COS off balance so that more refugees are able to slip away without being attacked by OSA.

I am sure that there are people working in secret on a legal plan to put the church in receivership until it can be straightened out.

If you want to ignite a grass-roots campaign to tackle the church legally, I suggest you use your experience and your website to rally support for that cause or to connect up with people who are already working on that project.

This is the Internet Age and we have the best tool available for spreading the word and generating support. If you or anyone else sees a need that isn’t being fulfilled, organize a group and go to it. You do not need our approval to do it. Just apply KRC with ARC and you will be surprised at what you will accomplish.

Paul Adams  on March 6th, 2010

DM runs CST, whatever the paperwork says. Larry Brennan has gone into this several times. He has a blog at http://larrybren.blogspot.com and posts to various message boards.


Mary McConnell  on March 17th, 2010

Hi, Old Auditor. Thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying but I have no interest in saving the tech and/or the church from DM. I just don’t see why independents, who do want the tech and the church don’t band together and force CST to do it’s job legally.

I am busy enough helping victms of Narconon’s internet and telephone deceptive trade practices and contract fraud get their refunds and their complaints into government agencies. I also research and collect data on their internet scams against vulnerable loved ones are fraudulently referred to Narconon, who fork over alot of money only to find out they were lied to. I put in 20 hrs a week doing this as a volunteer. Lawyers won’t take these complaints because it’s not cost effective and victims are tapped out from paying for another rehab once they get the addict out, sometimes resorting to help from the police.

For the independents, I worry about copyright infringement issues, as they have happened in the past to much harassment to many via in the courts. That could be avoided if one just sues the people responsible for ensuring the church does it’s job.

Paul Adams: Hi paul, yes, we know DM runs CST but in a court of law here in the USA, the officers and directors of the corporation are the responsible parties. Taking them to court and deposing them, in itself, would produce action.

Paul Adams  on March 18th, 2010

Good point Mary. Yes, that would be interesting. :)


Mary McConnell  on April 5th, 2010

Hello, here is a post by Larry Brennan who helped set up the corportate structures for the church, discussing how an OSA person can help get rid of DM. It elaborates more on the CST matter I wrote about. I think you will find this interesting. It was written in the event an OSA person saw it and wanted to do something to change the situation in the church. Really anyone wanting to get rid of DM can plan and apply this with the right logistics set up. Here ya go:

11 Hours Ago post #1

Just for the heck of it, I thought I would repost here a posting I did on another forum yesterday:


On the 1,000 to 1 chance that someone from OSA who has doubts will read this and want to look into it, here are some thoughts for you about legally removing David Miscavige. Hi David!

“To OSA folks who lurk here and who in their hearts would like to see David Miscavige removed from power:

As a corporate, legal matter it could be quite easy to remove Miscavige.

All you really need is the support of whoever are the RTC Trustees and a copy of the RTC bylaws that show how to remove board members including the Chairman of the Board.

If it is still like it was in my day when I helped design such corporate papers, RTC is legally run and controlled by three “bodies”: the trustees, the directors and the officers.

You may find that it is still true that there are between 3 and 7 trustees and that their sole purpose is to elect the board of directors. Trustees must be given access to all records of the corporation, they fill vacancies in the board and they have the power to remove a board member. I believe that to remove a director the trustees must vote unanimously to do so and they can remove a director when the director no longer qualifies to be a member of the board. Possibly though you only need a majority of trustees to do this. Check your current bylaws.

As far as directors go, there are maybe 3-5 of them as per the bylaws and one is listed as the Chairman of the Board (which will be Miscavige). As per the bylaws, at least this was true of the bylaws we prepared in the early 80s, no director can be a trustee.

The board members have normal corporate powers generally assigned to board members. This includes them appointing the normal corporate officers such as president, secretary and treasurer.

The senior most power in those three groups within RTC (the trustees, the directors and the officers) is thus the trustees through their power to control the directors who in turn control company business via the officers or otherwise.

As David Miscavige is a director he could not also be a trustee unless the RTC bylaws were changed on this point since my days in there. This means the trustees can remove Miscavige and he only controls them through intimidation and the like.

Reasons for removal of a director by a trustee can be found in the RTC bylaws. They used to, and probably still do, include such things as:

1) no longer being in good standing with the mother church (CSI);

2) no longer a proven executive as shown by statistics (your empty orgs betray the fact that there must be horrible key statistics under Miscavige’s reign);

3) violating the goals and purposes of RTC as will be laid out in the bylaws. Check them out. They likely include things like having to follow the creed of scientology, having to comply with the laws and having to follow some listed star-high goals of RTC. Easily you will find reasons here to remove Miscavige.

So you OSA legal folks who want to remove Miscavige with a view towards stopping the horrid abuses he oversees and/or carries out just need to get the trustees to remove him.

Perhaps do something like this:

a) find out who are the trustees and board members of RTC and list them;

b) just for the heck of it, do the same for the “mother church” CSI;

c) find who on those lists are no longer still active in the management of organized scientology or who otherwise are not there and thus no longer meet the qualifications of the positions as per the bylaws;

d) now see who is left as the trustees and directors of RTC and CSI once you take off the list those covered in “c” above;

e) what you have left are the current trustees and directors of RTC and CSI. Look at the trustees of RTC. Can you trust them as ones who could potentially stand up to Miscavige?

If the answer to “e” is “yes” do up a unanimous written consent of the trustees pointing out how Miscavige is no longer qualified to be a director and removing him as Chairman of the Board. Do the same for any other directors in his camp also doing abuses.

Take this and those trustees and any director willing to fight with you to one of the main scientology corporate attorneys saying you are the main officials of the corporation, you are hiring him/her to help you remove this cancer from your organization and want it carried out immediately. Having an officer with you, like maybe the president, could also be helpful although not mandatory. If you know any top corporate scientology attorneys who already show they dislike the abuses it would be a plus to go with them. Probably best to stay away from attorneys who have also personally represented Miscavige and who anyway are not likely highly competent corporate attorneys (like Yingling or Drecher).

He/she can tell you exactly how to do it. Work out the details of carrying this out such as escorting Miscavige off the premises, getting his keys to company cars, houses, etc. removing him as signatory of any accounts and the like. As well include the internal PR of announcing it to all staff.

It would be a plus if you also could get the trustees/directors of CSI to declare Miscavige no longer in good standing with organized scientology. This alone would legally disqualify him from being a board member of RTC.

Once you have done the above, clean up the trustees/directors in CST and CSI to ensure you just have people who are not abusive and not puppets to Miscavige.

(As a side note, if you could only get to the trustees/directors of CST who want to see the abuses end, there is a clause in a CST/RTC contract where CST can cancel the contract to RTC and the intellectual property rights that go with same should RTC place the rights in danger. I suggest Miscavige has placed them in danger in many ways, not the least of which is the utter collapse you are seeing in scientology worldwide. The attorneys who could have helped on this matter were Sherman Lenske, Meade Emory and Leon Misterix but that goes way back to the early 80s. I don’t know if any are still around though. I could give more details of this as well if needed. Doing this would be poetic justice as CST is really setup to be the way to start organized scientology all over again should the current structure with RTC. CSI, etc collapse. It was designed that way with a view towards defending against attacks from outside the structure. How just would it be if it was used from the inside to oust the bad guys as above).

OK look, I know this may not be possible as perhaps none of you OSA types who read this will have the courage to try it. And anyway who knows who are the trustees/directors now? Maybe none of them have the courage to do this either.

But it’s worth looking into and possibly would be a lot less difficult than you might think. Plus, this posting is likely going to end up in some OSA files somewhere and who knows who will read it some time down the line and realize how easy it really is to remove an abusive dictator like Miscavige or even, through CST, start organized scientology all over again.

I have been asked a number of times to help support removing Miscavige from power through some form of coup and declined each time. That is not because I did not care. I declined because I wish to have nothing to do with organized scientology in the future and have no desire to be a scientologist in any way. I also advised against the plans suggested to me as I felt that they were ill advised if not illegal.

The above is my final response as someone who helped design the whole corporate system, who once ran OSA and who ran legal outside of the courts for more years than anyone else.

Once again, those running organized scientology in a destructive way are far easier to remove from the inside than from the outside.

If you want to take out the great abuser, get some courage and do it. Check out the above as a possible legal way to carry it out if you and some trustees are willing.

If it doesn’t work fine, figure out your own way. Just stop complaining about Miscavige and his abuses if you are in a position to do something about it yet choose to do nothing.

This corporate stuff is really designed to stop attacks from outside of it be they civil actions or governmental actions. It is not nearly as strong for stopping attempts from inside of it to remove bad leaders. It’s doable if the trustees agree. You just have to have some courage and do it!!

Realize that Miscavige is truly a coward and controls you through fear and intimidation. Get over it and do something, legally of course. If you don’t and you are in a position to do something, you become just as responsible for the abuses as Miscavige IMO.

FWIW, some random thoughts.

Larry Brennan”

Another front anyone?

Anon of the Opera!!!

Christine: “I am the mask you wear”
Phantom: “It’s me they hear”

My blogspot: http://larrybren.blogspot.com/


Become a Teacher  on June 19th, 2010

When I was younger I used to be more tolerant of different religions, but as I’ve grown older I see more and more of some of them and the way they undermine or discriminate against certain parts of the population. Interesting write up, thanks.

Leave a Comment

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.

Total number of pages read by visitors: