TO: Mosey Rathbun files multi-million dollar lawsuit against CoS for harassment

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by rickybobby, Aug 21, 2013.

  1. fishypants Moderator

    Quoting from one's own (self-published) novel to accuse one's critics of being bad people and give them advice on how they can improve their personalities is a remarkably effective way of being annoying while completely avoiding the substance of the issue, I must admit.

    Must be the years of communication courses.
    • Like Like x 9
  2. RightOn Member

    • Like Like x 1
  3. JohnnyRUClear Member

    He's hitting on a very interesting and valid theme in that excerpt, although I have no idea what the context is since I haven't read the book -- and also no idea what he's intending to convey with it re: the present situation.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. fishypants Moderator

    The message I got was,

    but YMMV....
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Random guy Member

    Well, well, that's a novella I'm not going to read.
    • Like Like x 4

  6. Marty vs Marty-Tao:
    ''You can trust me, I'm not like the others.......''
    • Like Like x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Quentinanon Member

    TRs courses, executive TRs from the Flag Executive Briefing Course, Hubbard Effective Public Relations Course dogma, and his own narcissism.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Lol, LMTAO?
    Laughing my tiny ass off doubles as laughing my TAO off?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Christ on a crutch, is that how one creates the Marty-Tao?

    That's some dangerous LRH combo, there's no mind-douche available for an over-processed nut-job with those credentials........
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Exactly, LATEOTT. I thought it was funny - a sort of acronym-pun/double-entendre. :)

  11. lol I like it, clearly the TAO works...........
    • Like Like x 1
  12. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 2
  13. A family, A mother, a father and a little person called a child

    Marty Rathbun protects his family
  14. DeathHamster Member

    I hope it does, but the moment that this case is put to rest, the legal protection against CoS doing it all again disappear.

    So long as David Miscavige thinks that Marty has surrendered, they probably won't do the Squirrel Buster junk again, but they will do the Pat Broeker-type surveillance for ages.

    If Marty does anything that sets off Miscavige's paranoia alarm, the harassment level will go back up: post the wrong thing, see the wrong person, travel to the wrong place, talk to the wrong person on the phone...
    • Like Like x 4
  15. JohnnyRUClear Member

    But it will be ecclesiastical harassment, because church. Tony Ortega says so.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. DeathHamster Member

    I think Judge Waldip decided that it wasn't, but Fairy Shortarse waved his magic wand and made that disappear.
  17. The Wrong Guy Member

    This overview provides nothing new, but it's more publicity about all this.

    Another Weird Scientology Case Meets a Strange, Abrupt End in Texas | Houston Press

    Initially, it seemed like Monique Rathbun would fight Church of Scientology lawyers all the way to the Texas Supreme Court over harassment she claims she endured at the hands of church members. But despite allegations of church operatives chasing Rathbun and her husband from the Texas Gulf Coast to the Hill Country, Rathbun's case recently came to a sudden end.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. tippytoe Member

    Comment from Irma Laduce sounds like Marty Rathbun's voice addressing Tony Ortega and other critics. I mean, who else but Marty would make such a comment??

    • Like Like x 4
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  19. Here's the full text -

    Irma Laduce
    Still trying to understand what is so strange about someone dropping a law suit? It happens across this country every day. Especially after being dragged on for years. What I do find very strange in this case, is the way the person who dropped the case, has been relentlessly stalked, attacked, prosecuted in the press for dropping the law suit. It would appear this is a new type of domestic terrorism from the underbelly of social intercourse. I understand journalists and lawyers need to make bank, pay rent and mortgages. And they make a living off of other people's misery. Either by protesting in courts or media outlets. But to try to eek out a living off of someone who wants to move on, and punishing them because they no longer care to be someone's meal ticket, is a new kind desperation to find meaning in this world. When someone wants to move a situation into their past, and they are being forced to keep putting back into their present through this kind of bullying, the people they trusted as "solutions", have become a new problem. I hope the lawyers in this case and the media outlets that have exploited for profit / fame, the victim in this case, can find a new victim to piggy back on. And soon. Someone opted out of the game. Find a new player. Find a new theater.
  20. My bold.
    It's very odd.the whole for profit/for game is just like when they figure out the cult did that and now they are applying it to everything.
  21. Is Marty stupid enough to call fighting Scientology just a game that he decided to stop playing? Yes he is.
  22. fishypants Moderator

    That phrase rings a bell...

  23. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Irma Laduce ==> RUE CLAM AID
    • Like Like x 3
  24. anonysamvines Member

    Irma la douce

    This entertaining comedy finds disgraced former police officer Nestor Patou (Jack Lemmon) falling for beautiful Parisian prostitute Irma La Douce (Shirley MacLaine). Though Nestor becomes Irma's pimp, he can't stand the idea of her being with clients, so he devises a way to keep her all to himself. This scheme leads to plenty of trouble, however, and soon Nestor is forced to avoid his old law-enforcement peers in an attempt to stay with Irma and out of jail.

    Hmmmm I wonder if Marty has ever done anything that the statute of limitations hasn't run out on/clock only starts ticking once authorities have been notified?

    Has anyone asked Marty directly why so butt hurt? Or gotten an actual answer?

    He wasn't anti publicity before
  25. thesneakster Member

    I see you couldn't be bothered with linking the facebook account that posted that. Did you do even the most basic investigation to see whether that might be a real person, before making this insinuation which (I'm guessing) your Anonymous login socks are agreeing with ?

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist
  26. Irma Laduce received a reply to her comment, and responded herself -

    Robert Eckert ·
    University of Michigan

    Instructing the lawyers to settle the case would have been normal. Exposing herself to renewed harassment by Scientology, without any practical ability to do anything about it anymore, is odd, especially given that she was winning the case before her unilateral surrender. Making snide accusations against the lawyers who did excellent work for her for years, for nothing as it turns out, is odder. Treating it as "persecution" that all the people her husband invited to pay close attention to the case now are asking "huh?" about the outcome is the oddest.

    Irma LaduceRobert Eckert You state lawyers did excellent work for "nothing". False report. Firstly, her husband referred an earlier client, Debbie Cook, in which those attorneys profited very well within a very short time frame. So, the math is off here when you state the attorneys did not profit from knowing these people. But the people in this arena have very short term memory if not amnesia from day to day. Former Scientologists who wrote reams of success stories suddenly forget they ever had a gain from that community, and the mere fact they can not ever recall any profit more or less confirms thier dissapointment and recall ability.. People forgot already that Mr. Rathbun connected Debbie Cook up with these attorneys and they won an almost instant victory. And made big bank. People could remember that if they wanted to, it is that they do not want to think with the values the Rathbunes have been, if it does not prop up thier purposes. So, they wipe it from thier memory. Sloppy math is something they became comfortable with long before they heard of the Rathbuns. There are plenty of people that profit off of bad math. Mortgage brokers, Insurance salesman, loan brokers, real estate agents, medical practices that file insurance claims, etc etc. We live in a society that profits off of bad math. If you contribute to that profit, it bohooves you to not be able to figure values.The people in this arena that have discounted the value of the Rathbuns, have personal reasons for amnesia and not being able to do the math. That isn't on the Rathbuns, it is on the handicapped that are afflicted with amnesia and mathematical abilties. Because it serves thier purposes on some level when people can not add 1+1=2.
    Irma LaduceRobert Eckert Not that I mean to imply that I can personally understand why people make decisions to be blind, amnesiotic, wobbly, departed from straight reasoning, unable to add and subtract, and incorporate that into thier identity. I'm really clueless about these kind of personal decisions.
  27. There isn't any facebook account of Irma Laduce to link to, unlike the case of Robert Eckert, due to their respective FB privacy settings. I have not speculated at all. I have only posted here reporting what was publicly posted in the comments to that article.
  28. JohnnyRUClear Member

  29. tippytoe Member

    I think it's obvious my comment was speculation/opinion. That was my intention, hence no dox or research required. I ended with a question mark. Maybe you need to go back to word clearing class.

    As for making socks to like my own post, I can assure you the answer is no. Do you even realize that you "liked" my post?

    Peace out.
    • Like Like x 3
  30. Probably 'Oracle' who comments at Marty's blog and elsewhere.
    • Like Like x 2
  31. Irma's name reads "I'm a douche" to me. It's likely a Marty-bot because the logic in her arguments fall flat and make little sense. I see some circular reasoning going on (True for you...etc). It is definitely Hubbard-style by someone that hasn't learned to paragraph.
    • Like Like x 3
  32. DeathHamster Member
    • Like Like x 4
  33. fishypants Moderator

    Again Mr R completely ignores the substance of the argument.

    I see the fruit of years of training in "Never defend, always attack" here.

    I find that criticism quite interesting. As a "never-in" myself, I also find it difficult to make a clear distinction between victims and perps, among ex-scientologists. It seems to me that where people have been exploited and abused themselves and have also taken part in exploiting and abusing others, there isn't a clear line to be drawn (except perhaps in the case of those unlucky people who were indoctrinated in the cult from birth).

    Yeah, I hear Marty's voice there too. "False report" is certainly the type of language used by Scientologists and ex-s. Whether he's posting himself or whether its a supporter making excuses for him is pretty much immaterial, since the excuses themselves are so scanty:

    - The argument that the lawyers don't deserve to be paid for their work on this case because of the Debbie Cook referral in a different case seems rather dubious to me. If some kind of sales commission or referral fee were due to the Rathbuns, would this not be a matter for both sides to negotiate (ideally in advance) rather than for the Rathubuns to unilaterally take? If such a fee were genuinely owed then couldn't the Rathbuns simply ask for it to be paid to them in the normal way?

    - The idea that the Rathbuns get a free pass 'because society', is just laughable. Again there's a strong element of "always attack" creeping in here: "it serves thier [sic] purposes on some level" seems to argue that all Rathbun-criticism is invalid because it's the product of some wider conspiracy. This is an LRH style of argument.

    Going back to Alonzo, criticism 5 is:

    Well, if that's true then who cares? I mean, so what? Alonzo's entitled to his/her opinion and whether or not it's true doesn't make any difference to the lawsuit, or the Rathbuns, or to Scientology.....

    The Karpman Drama Triangle may be relevant. This seems like one of a series of situations where the 'victim' (a scientologist or ex) is helped by a 'rescuer' whom they later perceive as another 'persecutor'.
    • Like Like x 4
  34. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Is that all it is? It doesn't sound like that to me, after reading those linked articles. It sounds like an echo chamber has formed around a TO cult of personality, with some corresponding negative effects, including some folks becoming disillusioned and walking away.

    It's very helpful to always remember that nobody and nothing has a monopoly on error. Fighting evil, regardless of how real it may be, does not render you infallible -- and neither do memes. ;-)
    • Like Like x 4
  35. Malory Member

    Thing is they don't just walk away, they flounce off with big dramatic statements. What gets me is the refusal to take responsibility for their own actions, whether it's blaming Scientology for every shitty thing they did while in the cult or dumping on Tony O because they posted shitty things on the Bunker. It would be like me blaming Sue for every snarky remark I've ever made on here.
    FWIW I never got the impression Tony disliked Marty and remember criticisms being directed that Tony was too sympathetic towards him.

    Pointless fucking drama. Marty and Mosey could shut their critics up by simply making a statement. Alonzo can fuck right off with his defence of Cathy Tweed and Miss Tia can't cry if I call her an airhead because the mods made me post it and I'm only trying to fit in.

    Doesn't surprise me to see one of the usual suspects popping up either, offering a sympathetic shoulder and waving her wooden spoon about.
    • Like Like x 3
  36. fishypants Moderator

    To be fair, Sue is to blame for that. ;)

    Unless a true statement would say "we may not have accepted any money to give up this case but there is an explicit or implicit understanding with the other side that they'll do (or refrain from doing) something in return for us giving up the lawsuit", in which case it would have been dishonest of them to come to such an agreement while excluding their lawyers from getting paid for their work on the case as part of it (the hypothetical agreement).

    In that situation they'd be better-off doing a whole load of distraction and personal attacks and drama and victims-of-the-incompetent-lawyers, victims-of-the-vindictive-journalist, our-critics-are-bad-people, what-are-your-crimes type stuff.

    Which is in fact what we're seeing (IMO).

    I don't think Tony ever claimed to be. I realise you're not saying he did, but it seems to me that one of the implicit arguments Marty is using here is that in order to legitimately criticise him and his actions a person must be without flaw themselves - in other words the good old ad hom. Whether Tony likes Marty or has a secret malicious agenda to be horrid to him (and I'm having trouble seeing any reason why he would) simply makes no difference to the underlying facts and issues of the case.
    • Like Like x 5
  37. DeathHamster Member

    Which might be part of the arrangement, but probably not. Marty just rolls that way. (Too lazy to dig out the posts of him accusing Anonymous of Fair Gaming him back in the day.)
    • Like Like x 6
  38. AnonLover Member

    Nothing to see here, history is merely repeating itself. As it always does with Scientology and Scientology critics. For the tl;dr crowd who already know this, you can just jump to the end of this venting cuz it's not meant for your benefit.

    I used to think the pattern of an anti-scn community or group turning toxic, imploding and biting off its own head was something that started with ARS (and eventually carrying over to all messageboard forums in some lesser extent). But to my horror, I found evidence of the same damn thing - critics/activists/crusaders turning into what they hate and attacking their own kind - in the freaking FDA investigation files dating back to the 1960s and 70s!

    Worst ever example of this turn-toxic drama implosion pattern happening was when the Washington DC Atty General's office attacked the head of the god damned FDA for not doing something about a sad situation that the FDA had already investigated TWICE and found fuck-all nothing whatsoever that they could act on. Then they attacked the FDA again, and drug the damn DOJ into it, in a bawl fest about the FDA openly admitting they couldn't do anything about the sad situation just like the prosecutors couldn't do anything about it. The circular argument was insane: This landed in our office because you can't do anything about it and we can't do anything about it so we expect you to do something about it because it's your fault we can't do anything about it either. SMH. So it's not just critics who lose their damn minds and attack their fellow anti-scientology crusaders when they can't takedown the cult with words alone. It happens to all of us who stay in the game too long without taking breaks.

    IMO, at the heart of this pattern is the strength in numbers thing going to people's heads, shielded with a big dose of too much anti-scn research and outreach making a person desensitized to the nasty personality traits the cult implants in the faithful. While using humor and lulz has proven itself to be an effective weapon against scientology in recent years, the current problem is we have reached the point for a second time where adding too much of that good thing (the lulz) into the pattern of anti-scn groups always turning toxic with time, the humor becomes disgusting and abusive then creates a self-implosion powder keg with a big fat fuse.

    Then all it takes is one jaded nutter with the need to go full loon and attack something that is more malleable than Scientology's well honed defenses. Said nutter will flip their un-medicated lid and that damn fuse causes spontaneous human combustion among other burned-out critics turning them into temporary nutters. And surely, we anons have all been around long enough now to realize the subject of Scientology is a magnet for nutters, loons and whackjobs that come in all stripes - exes, never-ins, critics, activists, watchers or whatever label is currently fashionable. Becoming just like the cult does nobody any good and taking the high road out of that sort of mess requires shutting your damn mouth and letting the toxic nutters have the last word.

    This is also why I cringe over the never-ending hyperbole about "scientology is dying" or "scientology is imploding." Until the cult's physical footprint on the world (real estate holdings) begins to shrink and a long trail of physical evidence shows the money coffers are bone dry, ringing the cult's death bell prematurely only feeds that anti-scientology community gone toxic pattern of buildup-implosion-defection, which always ends the same way: anti-scn critics becoming their own worst enemies.

    Yeah sure - Scientology's membership is shrinking. But blowing that waaaaaaay out proportion into apocalyptic end-of-days pronouncements is a FreedomMag, OSA and DM propaganda tactic. It's a bad tactic worthy of disgust and contempt. And mirroring that tactic when you are not the one drinking the cult kool aid is even worse and just plain stupid. Dox or GTFO serves a purpose, it's the closest anybody has come to making a vaccine for toxic drama implosion pattern being avoided.

    The reason I say that is because crusaders first rang the Dianetics death bell when Dr. Winters got heckled off his free lecture pulpit after announcing Hubbard would soon be opening his first center in New Jersey. It got rung several more times when the mental health industry began a series of attacks on Dianetics. And on and on the proclamations of Hubbard's ideas dying out went until the cult won their battle with FDA over the e-meter. So this cult-is-dying shit was old and full of fail long before the Operation Snow White sentencing went way too soft on Mary Sue and the GO fall guys, proving once again the latest round of ringing the cult's death bell was nothing but propaganda.

    Stupid fucks still ringing that death bell nowadays are too ignorant to realize you can't kill ideas, best you can do legislate and regulate against the effect dangerous ideas cause. That's the real end game with Scientology's future demise - and we are nowhere near seeing the laws changed that strips them of their tax exemptions, neutralizes their religious cloaking defenses and prosecutes them for the psychological harm they do to adherents. That last thing being the very first crusade, where this whole mess we oppose started, which was a war that was lost despite all the death bells that were prematurely rung.

    But more to the point -- there comes a time when the best thing you can do when you oppose Scientology, is to do nothing and just fade away. Be it temporarily or permanently. Trying to drag people back into the cause they attempted to fade away from, for whatever reason, doesn't solve the real problem of loosing sight of the end game because the death of Scientology didn't roll around as quickly as you thought it would. Marty and Alanzo have both made the mistake of willingly letting people drag them back into a fight they no longer have a mindset to fight. And they should both know better because they have witnessed and been apart of this pattern happening before.

    ^^This is the real mistake I think Marty, Alanzo, and others now hopping on the lets-bash-tonyo short bus are making. The expiration date on their ability to further the cause in a good way is long since past and they have already driven themselves into a rut and joined the nutter camp due to the inevitable frustration caused by the simple fact that Scientology's ability to survive appears to be impervious to endless scandals and shame.

    Yeah sure, Tony's comment section went toxic a long time ago. But that's not his fault, nor is he the enabler because ALL anti-scn groups/communities turn toxic when people don't stay on target and police themselves against acting exactly like scilons act. Trolling could have halped that downward spiral, but Tony never had a herro troll pointing out when people crossed the line in a humorous way like we did when the WWP community was at its peak. And whenever there has been a proactive troll brave enough to poke his regular commenters with a reality check stick, the reaction it caused was pure cray cray and only made the toxic factor grow faster. (socks attacking socks while screeching that all socks are bad - sorry pot, can't call you black right now because I'm too busy being black ffs)

    So Tony was damned if he did or didn't deal with that toxic factor sooner imo, and it sucks that a prolific journalist doing waaaaaaay more good than harm is expected to also be a babysitter to a bunch of tards rallying at the fringe of our cause because the cult is the one thing even more stoopid than they are. IF ONLY somebody other than Ortega would have steered the never-ending offtopic bullshit to a FB group dedicated for TonyO fandom silliness, and kept the bunker comment section from becoming a personal headspace where anything goes, we might not have this sorry mess unfolding. But hindsight is 20/20 and Tony became a moderator/admin of a raucous crowd by osmosis and not by choice.

    It's easy for freedom of expression turn into freedom to be fugly fools when you forget your behavior reflects on somebody's name and professional image who gave you a piece of their branded space to express yourself in the first place. To use that space frequently means you represent the brand and you should find some place else to shitpost if you want people to respect and appreciate the brand as much as you do.

    There should be a touchstone at the beginning of the path to anti-scientology advocacy with a warning such as this:

    Tread carefully and proceed with caution. The road ahead will be rife with failure, frustration and disappointment. When you begin to mimic what you hate, it is time to lay down your sword and just walk away. Or STFU and go DIAF. Either way, beware of falling into the deep rut beside this road where you do more harm than good. We have enough talking corpses of critics turned nutter flopping around in there already.
    • Like Like x 8
  39. Bertolt Brecht 1898-1956
    Der Mensch lebt durch den Kopf
    der Kopf reicht ihm nicht aus
    versuch es nur; von deinem Kopf
    lebt höchstens eine Laus.
    Denn für dieses Leben
    ist der Mensch nicht schlau genug
    niemals merkt er eben
    allen Lug und Trug.

    Ja; mach nur einen Plan
    sei nur ein großes Licht!
    Und mach dann noch´nen zweiten Plan
    gehn tun sie beide nicht.
    Denn für dieses Leben
    ist der Mensch nicht schlecht genug:
    doch sein höch´res Streben
    ist ein schöner Zug. Ja; renn nur nach dem Glück
    doch renne nicht zu sehr!
    Denn alle rennen nach dem Glück
    Das Glück rennt hinterher.
    Denn für dieses Leben
    ist der Mensch nicht anspruchslos genug
    drum ist all sein Streben
    nur ein Selbstbetrug.

    Der Mensch ist gar nicht gut
    drum hau ihn auf den Hut
    hast du ihn auf den Hut gehaut
    dann wird er vielleicht gut.
    Denn für dieses Leben
    ist der Mensch nicht gut genug
    darum haut ihn eben
    ruhig auf den Hut.
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins