Customize

Is Co$ violating Texas law with its use of private invistagators?

Discussion in 'Think Tank' started by Anonymous, Oct 20, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    The Mosey Rathburn lawsuit is bringing up some interesting questions about how Co$ operates. One of the things noticed is the questionable use of private investigators in the state of Texas. Ironically, the PI industry is strictly regulated across the country, and it appears that many of these private investigators hired by CO$ are violating the regulations. They even have the audacity to hire and use private investigators in questionable ways, while currently being sued.

    https://whyweprotest.net/community/...uit-against-cos-for-harassment.113178/page-31

    - Mike Bennitt, an ex-Scientologist who has been filming proceedings, reports that he’s now being tailed by private investigators, and two local reporters are also being surveilled

    Co$ is real big in hiring PIs to do its dirty cult work. Yet are they doing this legally? It would be luzy if they got into more trouble about the use of the PIs while being sued for harassment from their last use of a PI. It would also remove one of the cults few weapons from its arsenals.

    But do we have enough information on their use of PIs to be able to do anything?



    Here are some regulations to give people an idea of what CO$ may be doing wrong:
    state government regulations
    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/OC/htm/OC.1702.htm


    industry regulations
    http://www.tali.org/code-of-ethics:
    http://www.ipiu.org/forums/showthread.php?3558-PI-LICENSING-Texas

    Even if they are not breaking the law, TALI, may be very annoyed at CO$ and the investigators they hired, and do something about it if we could bring them some information.

    quotes from the Texas association of licensed investigators

    • To conduct all aspects of investigation within the bounds of legal, moral and professional ethics.
    • To apprise clients against any illegal or unethical activities and to cooperate with law enforcement or other governmental agencies, as required by law.
    • Like Like x 4
  2. Random guy Member

    I've been curious about this as well. I have a hard time understanding how the CoS' use of PIs can be legal. In my neck of the woods any PI caught doing things like that would be without a license very soon. The end result is that OSA has had to do their own dirty work here (with very limited success).
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    I remember the cult claiming that PI use is done by the lawyers, and presumably any legal fees wouldn't run afoul of legal stipulations. Imo this is bullshit, but it is their claimed position.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member


    AHHHH, but in the mosey lawsuit, jim lynch has claimed to be a scilon and working under orders from the "church". Would that have any consequences here? Even then, there are the industry regulations too, so the industry unions and licensing organizations would be upset at anyone that would cause the industry any scrutiny due to questionable practices.
  5. Visitor2014 Member

    In my personal opinion, the author of this thread provided an excellent resource with the Texas Statutes.

    Starting with: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/OC/htm/OC.1702.htm

    In the full reading of the statutes, there is a provision where a private investigator does not need a state issued license when he/she is employed by an organization in an employer-employee status investigating the "affairs" of the organization. See Sec. 1702.323 in above statute link.

    Secondly, the statutes also provide for an organization to hire an attorney - which subsequently permits the attorney to hire an unlicensed private investigator to handle the case in Texas - in every task in which a licensed private investigator is authorized to do (because the attorney is already professionally licensed through the bar association).

    Both the TALI and IPIU Code of Ethics include provisions for an unlicensed private investigator to work in this manner.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. RightOn Member

    No violation of law what so ever. Wog law.
    It's for the greatest good...
    oh wait...
    • Like Like x 1
  7. tinfoilhatter Member

    It is a violation of wog law. according to section 170.323, he is only allowed to be an unlicensed investigator, if he is a security guard on scientology property, or a private investigator who solely works for scientology.

    Sec. 1702.323. SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF PRIVATE BUSINESS. (a) Except as provided by Subsections (b) and (d), this chapter does not apply to an individual employed in an employee-employer relationship exclusively and regularly by one employer in connection with the affairs of the employer.
    (b) An individual described by Subsection (a) who carries a firearm in the course of employment must obtain a private security officer commission under this chapter.
    (c) The security department of a private business may not hire or employ an individual to perform a duty described by Section 1702.222 if the individual has been convicted of a crime that would otherwise preclude the individual from being registered under this chapter. The private business shall maintain the individual's criminal history record on file at the business and shall make the record available for inspection by the Department of Public Safety.
    (c-1) Although the security department of a private business that hires or employs an individual as a private security officer to possess a firearm in the course and scope of the individual's duties is required to apply for a security officer commission for the individual under this chapter, the security department of a private business is not required to apply to the board for any license under this chapter.
    (d) This chapter applies to an individual described by Subsection (a) who in the course of employment:
    (1) comes into contact with the public;
    (2) wears:
    (A) a uniform commonly associated with security personnel or law enforcement;
    (B) any type of badge commonly associated with security personnel or law enforcement; or
    (C) a patch or apparel containing the word "security" or a substantially similar word that is intended to or is likely to create the impression that the individual is performing security services; and
    (3) performs a duty described by Section 1702.108 or 1702.222.

    What this means for the mosey rathburn case, is that for moxxen to have been legally employed in Texas, then he MUST solely be working for CSI, and that scientology is RESPONSIBLE for his actions.Furthermore, he better not have been carrying a firearm at the time...

    The scilons have two choices now, pay up, or throw him under the bus.

    This has a lot of serious tax and legal ramifications. I can not wait to see the fallout when this is all over.
  8. tinfoilhatter Member


    I am not too familiar with Texas law, but i am somewhat familiar with trade groups. Tali and Ipiu are trade groups. Scientology's actions in Texas hurt their trade, In some states, this would be grounds for a lawsuit. They may be able to sue, if the were notified of the situation.
  9. RightOn Member

    you know I was kidding right?
  10. tinfoilhatter Member

    no i didn't. :oops:



    Anyway, its nice to have a summary from that dox, because i have yet to find a state statute that is not TL. I am operating under the belief that certain authorities that do not like CO$ are reading these forums, and i am willing to do their job for them, if it means sending a scilon to jail.
  11. Visitor2014 Member

    Sorry, but what "is not TL" refer to?
  12. tinfoilhatter Member

    TL/DR

    TL means too long

    DR means didn't read.

    Part of what makes this so hard, is that a lot of laws are too wordy, and are very hard to sift through.

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