Scientology Crime Syndicate

From humanrights@racerrecords.com Thu Dec 31 00:25:57 1998
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: picket report, San Francisco, 12/5/98 [posted 12/30]
From: humanrights@racerrecords.com (Kristi Wachter)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:25:57 -0800

Date: Saturday, December 5, 1998 Start and End Times: 10:30 am - 7:40 pm (minus three breaks) Location: San Francisco Picketers: Kristi Wachter, Brent Stone, Keith Henson Handlers: Mark, Bill Crawford, and Jeff Quiros on camera Number of Handouts given away: about 700 of the ones I brought; others gave away their own

On December 5, 1998, we held a special protest and memorial to remember Lisa McPherson and to grieve the losses of all those who have been hurt by Scientology, and all those who are being hurt today.


Since this was likely to be the biggest San Francisco picket I'd ever been at, I took the precaution of notifying the police well in advance. I sent them a letter, along with info about Lisa's death, the felony charges against Scientology, and a flier incorporating Gregg Hagglund's excellent picket advisory (slightly modified for San Francisco).

In addition, since the Scientology revenge-picketers had already picketed my home this week (although my neighbors only reported seeing a single person, standing around on the sidewalk for a few minutes), I also distributed fliers to my neighbors entitled "If you see picketers this weekend, here's what's going on". The flier debunked Scientology's charges that I'm a bigot, stated my concerns, and included a list of questions on the back for those who might be inclined to chat with any picketers on my street. I distributed them on Friday and Saturday mornings to the homes and apartment buildings near me, as well as to the churches on my corner.

My picket was dedicated to all those who had been hurt by Scientology. Lisa McPherson was foremost in my mind, but I also wanted to honor the memory of Rodney Rimando, who joined Scientology in the Bay Area and died at age 21 in late November twelve years ago - his story appeared in the San Jose Mercury on December 5, 1986. I had researched Rodney's story and made up fliers detailing Scientology's lies about Rodney's involvement with Scientology. I also made up a sandwich board sign saying "Did Scientology kill Rodney Rimando?" and, in honor of Wayne Whitney, "Scientology is a scam!"

I loaded up my backpack with hundreds of fliers (half-pagers on Lisa McPherson and Rodney Rimando, as well as printouts of the babywatch logs, an excerpt from the Introspection Rundown, a list of people who've been held against their will, and a bunch of other reference material, plus pens, tape, a stapler, candles, matches, cassettes, and spare batteries, and loaded up myself with my sign, three sandwich signs, my tape recorder, my flier holder, and my headband. ( ... You don't suppose the Scientologists will say I was LOADED?!? <grin>)

As usual, I handed out several fliers on my way to the org. One gentleman asked for a flier. He said his brother worked for the Florida State's Attorney's office and he was familiar with Lisa's death.


Although I had planned to arrive at 10 am, SPs like me are chronically late, and I didn't get there until almost 10:30. I soloed for quite a while, greeting familiar faces (such as the couple I'd just given directions to at the Civic Center, and SeaOrgBoy, who politely returned my "good morning") and giving out fliers.

Shortly after my arrival, I acquired a handler. He chose not to tell me his name, but I later learned that it was Mark.

Mark handled me aggressively for perhaps two hours. Because of his somewhat nasty style, I've transcribed nearly all of our conversation, which I will post separately.

(Our conversation was frequently interrupted by my spiel: "I think Scientology is breaking the law. Would you like to know more?" I made a lot of contact and gave away a lot of fliers while talking with Mark. I also added to my regular spiel, encouraging people to contact the IRS, since Scientology's tax-exempt status is up for review. I kept up the waving tech pretty regularly, especially when busses came by.)

Here are some highlights of my conversation with Mark:

Mark repeatedly asserts that I'm picketing because I have emotional problems - that *I* am the issue, not Scientology's crimes, and that my picketing is a cry for help.

Mark repeatedly digs into my personal life to find out what emotional hole in my life is causing me to picket, asking me about my kids, my husband, my boyfriend ("Well, then what about a girlfriend?"); I repeatedly refuse to answer his questions about my relationships.

Mark asks me whether I've had psych treatment and, when I refuse to answer, decides that I have.

Mark indicates that he has a button on my red picketing jammies by repeatedly mentioning them. (Hey! Maybe I'll find a little lapel button and put it on in Mark's honor, so when I wear it he'll know that I know that he has a button on my outfit. <SNARK!>)

Mark calls the homeless people in the Tenderloin "failures."

Mark accuses me of lying. I ask him to identify a lie of mine. He looks at my sign (which says, in part, "Scientology hurt Lisa McPherson") and tells me Scientology didn't hurt Lisa.

Mark says repeatedly that I'm on a vendetta. (Unsure of its precise meaning, I ask him to word-clear it for me. He says, "It's attack just for the sake of attack." Later, at home, I check the dictionary, which says, "an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange of such acts." Oops. Maybe Mark should see Astara Wong about some professional word-clearing. ... Since Scientology had never done anything to me before I started picketing, clearly revenge isn't my motivation.)

Mark says all the critics have the same party line and we're DRILLED on it.

Mark asks if I would let someone give me electric shock therapy "just to see how it felt?"

Mark repeatedly fails to respond when I compare Scientology critics to CCHR protestors.

Mark says I shouldn't say anything bad about Scientology unless it's been proven in court.

Mark says Scientology has no crimes.

In discussing Scientology acting like bullies, I state that Scientology does not have the right to break the law and stalk people (like me); Mark says, "Oh yeah? Who provoked everything?" and repeatedly implies that Scientology CAN break the law if they've been provoked enough.

Mark says there are "hundreds of thousands" of people involved in Scientology.

Mark says ARS is a hate group but admits he's only read a few selected posts people have printed out for him.

Mark says I'm slandering people, even though he says I'm staying just barely on the side of the law (... because I'm not ACTUALLY lying, so I'm not ACTUALLY slandering anyone).

Mark slanders Gerry Armstrong, calling him a "thief."


After a couple of hours of this, my throat is rather dry, so I tell Taniwha that I'd like to go get something to drink. He's ready for a break, too. I'm nervous about leaving the org with no picketers at all, since I'd said we'd be picketing from 10 - 5, but I haven't seen Tani in ages, and we pop into the cafe for a soothing beverage. (Bill Crawford has been handling Tani, and as we head for the cafe I jokingly suggest that we can leave our signs with Mark and Bill, and they can continue the picket until we return.)

We catch up a bit and talk about the news from Clearwater. As we're talking, we catch sight of Peaches across the street, so we wave her in to join us.

Peaches has brought two signs, and since she's been planning to make a new sign for weeks, I congratulate her.


When we return, I get to talk with Bill Crawford, and (as I recall) Mark latches onto Tani.

Bill asks me for a mint (he'd had onions for lunch) and I'm only too happy to oblige. Yes, folks - a Scientologist has actually accepted candy from me! He asks if I'd had a good time talking with Mark, and I reply that it wasn't as much fun as talking with Bill himself.

Bill starts out by telling me that he's recently been called for jury duty, and he was rejected by one of the laywers, possibly because he was too direct about himself and his opinions.

Mysterious Dude shows up with a splendid new sign, obviously the product of much care and effort. I make sure he's got everything he needs and continue talking with Bill (and fliering pedestrians).

As readers of my previous picket reports know, Bill is a great handler - he's got a sense of humor, he's pleasant, and he's reasonably coherent ... so it's not as revealing to post our entire conversations. I did come across a few distressing blind spots in our chat this time, though, such as his certainty that Hubbard was a great and an honest man, and his belief that my picketing was the result of something bad that had happened to me, rather than compassion and concern for people that Scientology has hurt. (He hadn't mentioned this before, and I was really disappointed to learn that he seemed to think I was dramatizing an incident or something rather than simply acting as an activist.)

Bill mentions that he has ARC for me, and I get to tell him that he's the current holder of the coveted title of Kristi's Favorite Scientologist, which seems to please him.

Bill: What I'd like to do is talk about why in the hell you're so adamant about and see if I can handle that, which is what I used to do as an Ethics Officer. ... I was an Ethics Officer for 7 years, I never locked anybody up. I don't know of anyone who's been locked up because they disagreed with the church.

I mentioned Stacy Young's comment that she'd been held for 8 months.

Bill: I'm just sort of curious as to when this thing started that you got so upset about.

Me: Well, right around when I started picketing, around April. I had read alt.religion.scientology and Clambake ... I was in Scientology for about a month, and as a result of that, I always had an interest in it, and I'd heard stories of people being locked up, and I never believed the stories of people being locked up and children being put in the chain lockers on the Apollo - I thought, that could never happen. And then I heard about Lisa McPherson. And then I started reading some of the other stories that are on the web and have very similar details. And a lot of the people who come out and talk to me are convinced that anything I read bad about Scientology I instantly believe and anything good I negate. And that certainly is not true, and that especially was not true 6 months ago, 12 months ago. And I wanted to find out if this stuff was for real, and that's when I went over to the library and started looking at the actual policies and started reading the real stuff straight from Hubbard's pen. And that's when I began to believe that it was seriously breaking the law.

Bill: But why would you get such a hobby-horse - let me ask you this: have you ever had anything like that happen to you, where somebody locked you up for a while, like your parents?

Me: No, I don't think so. I mean the closest thing I can think of is not being able to get my way when I was a kid.

At this point, Jeff Quiros came out to take pictures of us. He looked like he was going to get some shots of Peaches and Tani from behind, so I called out to them, "Photo time, everybody!" and they turned around for the photo shoot.

Bill talks about how he had been restrained as a small child after an operation, and he hopes my parents never did anything like that. "But straight out of Dianetics - have you ever had anything similar happen to you that would cause you to feel as adamantly as you do?"

Me: No. I've never been locked up. Thank God.

Bill: Did you ever get incarcerated? Even something like being sent to summer camp and they wouldn't let you out?

Me: No. I have a really good imagination.

Cheryl comes out of the org, and I say hi, good to see you, and she says the same. (Cheryl spoke with me briefly during a previous picket. She was very nice and personable. She said she was a student and was taking some courses.)

Bill also brings up psychiatry (HIS personal hobby-horse, although he notes that he doesn't go out and demonstrate against it, implying that it's better NOT to than to be an activist). He does the same $10,000 offer routine that Mark tried, pointing out that there's been an offer of $10,000 for any doctor that will undergo electric shock therapy, and no one's taken them (who?) up on the offer, and why did I think that was? I said because as far as I knew it was not a completely harmless procedure - just one that could help someone in a desperate situation. You don't ordinarily amputate people's limbs, either, but you would in certain circumstances. I don't imagine anyone would take $10,000 to have a limb amputated, either.

Geez. <sigh>

I tell Bill that I think Scientology can do away with bad stuff - such as the Introspection Rundown and the RPF - without losing the parts that Scientologists like himself find valuable.

Bill: What I defend, and what I am for, is number one the technology and number two Mr. Hubbard. Cause in my heart of hearts I know the immense good that he did, and the immense self-sacrifice. I mean, he had money on his own right. He had all that stuff. He didn't take vacations, generally. He thrust his whole life into trying to make things better, flat out. The man was so dynamic I don't think he needed any more power than he had in his own right. I don't think he necessarily needed to get into Scientology - the hours that he put in, that wasn't it. The only thing I can honestly go by is my own experience. When I had a problem, it was with a person - I seldom if ever had a problem with the technology. To this day - there's a book called the Marriage Hat, and I found out Hubbard didn't write it, his wife did. And one of the things it said was if a husband and wife have an argument, that if they can't come to some kind of agreement, that they go with the husband's point of view. And I said well, that's a bunch of bullshit, number one, and number two, who's to say that if a spiritual being is in a woman's body, that that spiritual being is a second class citizen? Of course, women have been second-class citizens in every religion philosophy that has gone down.

... I know that when the FBI thing occurred and Mary Sue Hubbard was involved in breaking into the FBI offices, number one, LRH had her pulled off Scientology lines, and number two, when she was sentenced to jail time, he did nothing to stop 'em, cause she broke the law. And that says something. He certainly, if what everyone else says is true, he had all the money in the world to defend her, and probably could have gotten her off with probation, and he was pissed.

Me: Well, some people interpret that as letting her take the fall.

Bill: And they would. But I've read all of his stuff, and when you get to understand and know an author, there's always a flair. ...

The conversation lags a bit, and Bill tells me a little about his current level. He says he's OT5, and he has levels 6 & 7 paid for, but he wants to go straight to OT8 in one shot, so he plans to take some time off from work, so he's saving his money and paying off some debts and hopes to do OT 6-8 in 2001. He says OT8 is his goal for this lifetime, and I ask if he'll want to do OT9 if it's released during this lifetime, and he says, "Absolutely."

It starts to rain, and I postulate sunshine (to no avail) while Peaches postulates putting up her umbrella (with greater success). Taniwha takes off so he can stave off his impending cold.

Bill asks what my next crusade would be if I stopped picketing Scientology. I think for a bit and say probably China, over Tibet, and perhaps I'd do more to save the redwoods.

We can hear a rival demonstration over on Market Street a block away - it turns out to be a Christian rally for Vineyard Ministries.

Since we were discussing honesty, I ask Bill how important he thinks honesty is, and he says it's very important (actually, he says, "I think it's impeccable," which I think may indicate that Bill could use a little word-clearing his own self.)

Me: Do you think there's any evidence that Scientology or Hubbard ever lied?

Bill: I don't think Hubbard ever lied. I think he gave his version. ... Then you can get into the philosophical thing that one man's truth is another man's fallacy. And to that degree as well, truth is nothing more than an angle or a version -

Me: So you don't think there's any such thing as absolute truth?

Bill: No. I haven't seen it. I haven't experienced it. There's always something that can refute it. And Scientology is no different. It does not work absolutely for every being in the universe.

(While we were talking, we were interrupted for conversations with passersby:

One gentleman asked about my fliers and about Rodney, and compared LRH to Jim Bakker.

Another time, I was relating the story of Lisa's demise and Bill said she was under a doctor's care, so I pointed out that Johnson wasn't licensed to practice medicine and Minkoff prescribed drugs for Lisa over the phone, without examining her.

A woman came by who had been in briefly and was regged really hard and resented not being able to stand up to them. I mentioned the "There was no Christ" quote and Bill said he hasn't heard it - I'll have to try to get him a copy of that.

A couple of a.r.s. readers (Chemiker & a friend) come by to say hi; they ask if there've been confrontations, I say no, I introduce Bill and say he's a total sweetheart)

Phr arrives, and I load him down with fliers.

A new picketer shows up, posing briefly as a passerby:

Me: Hi, would you like some info sir?

Him: OK.

Me: Great - I think Scientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop doing those things. They have policies that I personally have read in official Scientology publications on locking people up.

Him: What do they say about locking people up?

Me: Well, they say if somebody has suffered what they consider to be a psychotic break, they should be locked up and nobody talks to them, and the way they determine their liberty is for their Case Supervisor to ask them for a statement of personal responsibility, and they can't leave until their Case Supervisor thinks they're ready to. Scientology is not licensed to do that to people.

Him: Right, it actually keeps the PTS in a state of enturbulation...

Me: Exactly. ... You seem to have a little bit of background in this. Are you on the Internet?

Him: Yes.

Me: Do you want to give me a nick for my picket report?

Him: Mike.

Me: (teasing:) You're Mike Smith, aren't you?!?

Him: No, I'm not Mike Smith. (I mention "MikeSmith" to Bill, he says he knows two Mike Smiths in Scientology.) I post as Mike de Wolfe.

I'm delighted to meet him and give him a big hug. I give him a sandwich board - yellow - and he picks out a couple of slogans ("Scientology Lies" and "Scientology Attacks Religious Freedom") to staple onto the backing. I tell him I have the anti-squirrel campaign article with me. He has some fliers with him.

More pedestrian interactions: a gentleman offers me $5 to buy one copy of every flier I have. I tell him to keep it and spend it making photocopies of the ones I've given him.

Another gentleman says something about Scientology fucking with him when he lived in Hollywood, and wouldn't say anything more until I turned off my tape recorder. (... and so I'm not going to repeat what he said, since he was clearly wary about sharing it.)

More picketers showed up: first Trina, then Podkayne. I was utterly delighted to meet them both. I loaded them both down with fliers and Poddy took a pair of sandwich boards. Meklar arrived, too, although my notes don't say when. With 8 of us fliering, waving at busses, and strolling the sidewalks, we all got to relax a bit.

Jeff Quiros came out to take some more pictures, and I came over and admired his snazzy new Sony digital camera.

We were all ready for another break, so we adjourned to the cafe yet again for coffee and snacks. We spent at least half an hour warming up and drying off, chatting and getting acquainted, before we headed back out into the rain and chill.

We had pretty well tired out our handlers, and it was getting darker, so the rest of the afternoon was just taken up with general picketer chat. Podkayne mentioned the picket cheers ("2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - who do we enturbulate?") and I bemoaned the fact that I hadn't brought Roland's "I'm An Auditor" song lyrics with me.


By about 5:15, it had gotten dark, and I suggested we start the vigil. Madwog and a friend appeared for the vigil, as did Bob Just a Wog, and we passed around cups and candles and we lit (and relit) the candles.

We stood in a small circle and took turns speaking of those who had been hurt by Scientology - Lisa McPherson, Rodney Rimando, Scientologists like Honnicut and Safe4mulas who are afraid to speak openly about their concerns about Scientology, and others we had known, or heard from, or heard about, who had suffered because of Scientology. We shared a moment of silence.


At last, we crossed the street to the Thai restaurant across from the org. They found a table big enough for the group. (Tani and Podkayne weren't able to join us, but by now there were a lot of us: Peaches, Mysterious Dude, Trina, Mike de Wolfe, phr, Bob Just A Wog, Meklar, and Madwog and her friend, plus me.) We ordered a bunch of different dishes and shared all around. I couldn't hear all the conversation at the other end of the table, but I know *I* had some fascinating talks, learning about Apple schools and how people maintain tenuous contact with people who are still in and some of the truly bizarre consequences of Scientology's emphasis on stats.

We ate and sipped tea and talked and laughed and shared for about two hours, until we were all full and rested and considerably warmer.

A few people wanted to go back out for an evening picket, and some of us were getting up to do just that, when a rush of hail spattered against the restaurant's canopy and windows!

We waited a few more minutes, then decided to go out and brave the weather at about 7:15.

Cautious showed up and went outside with us (making it a total of 13 people who picketed today). I was chilly and kept moving, waving at traffic to keep warm. The light from the streetlight was quite bright, and I think our signs were still plenty visible. The rain misting down under the streetlights looked a little like snow. At some point, Cautious, Madwog and her friend, Mysterious Dude, and I were all outside under the streetlight.

A chant occurred to me - "We're here! We're clear! Get used to it!" - and I shared it with the others but I think we'll save it for another time.

Shortly after we started, the lights in the org were turned off and the two staffers disappeared from the lobby.

Madwog lit a lamp she had brought for the vigil and placed it in front of the org's door in memory of Lisa. A staffer immediately popped his head out the door (setting off the org's alarm in the process) to tell her she couldn't put the lamp there.

I bounced around and picketed under the streetlight - I definitely felt I had gotten my second wind.

At about 7:40, we were damp and chilly again and we finally called it a night. We went back to the restaurant to say our goodbyes, and we all headed back to our warm, safe homes.


From humanrights@racerrecords.com Thu Dec 31 00:35:30 1998
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Scn comm in action again - Mark handles me (1/3)
From: humanrights@racerrecords.com (Kristi Wachter)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:35:30 -0800

During my San Francisco picket on December 5, 1998, I had a handler named Mark. Mark handled me aggressively for perhaps two hours. Because of his somewhat nasty style, I've transcribed nearly all of our conversation.

I frequently interrupted our conversation to flier passersby: "I think Scientology is breaking the law. Would you like to know more?" I made a lot of contact and gave away a lot of fliers while talking with Mark. I also kept up the waving tech pretty regularly, especially when busses came by.)

During the course of our conversation, Mark appeared unable to confront any unpleasant facts about Scientology, and instead tried to assert that I had emotional problems and was lying about Scientology.

Note for newbies: when I say Mark "handled" me, what I mean is that he came out to talk with me in such a way as to serve Scientology's goals - to try to confuse my thinking, or to make it look to other Scientologists that someone was doing something about me, or possibly even to actually try to resolve my concerns. (Some Scientology handlers do in fact seem to genuinely want to know why I'm picketing, but usually I think the first two purposes are in play.) He didn't touch me - he was kind of in my face, but he in no way did anything illegal, and he was very good about not interfering with my conversations with pedestrians - although I think one of his goals was to occupy me so that I wouldn't be as effective as a picketer. One passerby asked me if Mark was harassing me, saying "I'm noticing this guy just shepherding you." I explained that it was okay, that I didn't mind talking with Mark, and asked Mark, "If I asked you to stop talking to me, would you?" Mark said, "Probably not." <sigh> The passerby gave me his email and offered to sign a statement that Mark was harassing me.

Also, it will help readers to know that I was carrying a picket sign which said, on one side:


Scientology hurt Lisa McPherson.
Scientology hurt Wayne Whitney.
Scientology hurt Dorothy Geary.


And on the other side:


I was also wearing a sandwich board sign which said, on one side:


and on the other:



Here are some highlights of my conversation with Mark:

Mark repeatedly asserts that I'm picketing because I have emotional problems - that *I* am the issue, not Scientology's crimes, and that my picketing is a cry for help.

Mark repeatedly digs into my personal life to find out what emotional hole in my life is causing me to picket, asking me about my kids, my husband, my boyfriend ("Well, then what about a girlfriend?"); I repeatedly refuse to answer his questions about my relationships.

Mark asks me whether I've had psych treatment and, when I refuse to answer, decides that I have.

Mark indicates that he has a button on my red picketing jammies by repeatedly mentioning them. (Hey! Maybe I'll find a little lapel button and put it on in Mark's honor, so when I wear it he'll know that I know that he has a button on my outfit. <SNARK!>)

Mark calls the homeless people in the Tenderloin "failures."

Mark accuses me of lying. I ask him to identify a lie of mine. He looks at my sign (which says, in part, "Scientology hurt Lisa McPherson") and tells me Scientology didn't hurt Lisa.

Mark says repeatedly that I'm on a vendetta. (Unsure of its precise meaning, I ask him to word-clear it for me. He says, "It's attack just for the sake of attack." Later, at home, I check the dictionary, which says, "an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange of such acts." Oops. Maybe Mark should see Astara Wong about some professional word-clearing. ... Since Scientology had never done anything to me before I started picketing, clearly revenge isn't my motivation.)

Mark says all the critics have the same party line and we're DRILLED on it.

Mark asks if I would let someone give me electric shock therapy "just to see how it felt?"

Mark repeatedly fails to respond when I compare Scientology critics to CCHR protestors.

Mark says I shouldn't say anything bad about Scientology unless it's been proven in court.

Mark says Scientology has no crimes.

In discussing Scientology acting like bullies, I state that Scientology does not have the right to break the law and stalk people (like me); Mark says, "Oh yeah? Who provoked everything?" and repeatedly implies that Scientology CAN break the law if they've been provoked enough.

Mark says there are "hundreds of thousands" of people involved in Scientology.

Mark says ARS is a hate group but admits he's only read a few selected posts people have printed out for him.

Mark says I'm slandering people, even though he says I'm staying just barely on the side of the law (... because I'm not ACTUALLY lying, so I'm not ACTUALLY slandering anyone).

Mark slanders Gerry Armstrong, calling him a "thief."

Here, then, is a fairly complete transcription of my conversation with Mark, minus my flier hawking and the bits when I had to turn over my tape.


Mark: I want to know, what it is that brings you out here?

Me: I think Scientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop. Are you a Scientologist?

Mark: Yes.

I make sure he knows that I am recording; he says "That's fine."

Mark: So, I have a question though. That's sort of like the surface issue, but what is it that brings YOU out here?

Me: What makes you think I have a hidden motivation?

Mark: I didn't say you had a HIDDEN motivation ...

[A passerby asks about people on my sign. I tell her about Lisa, Wayne, and Dorothy. She says, "You be careful."]

Mark: So I'm just trying to figure out what brings you here. I know the issue. What is it that brings you here? Why is this at the top of your list?

Me: Two reasons: it's a human rights issue that's happening in my state, and the way in which Scientology tries to suppress the truth really bothers me. I'm a big human rights advocate and a big free speech advocate, and Scientology's violations of both of those things really bother me.

Mark: That's not really quite the question. There's gotta be - most normal people have the same sentiments you do.

Me: All my friends keep telling me I'm not normal.

Mark: Most people have a life, something that's important to them. Most people have things to do - important things -

Me: Are you implying A that I don't have things to do and B that this isn't important?

Mark: I'm just trying to find out what drives you to make this so important instead of other things.

I asked him if he'd like to give me a name or a nickname for my picket report, but he declined.

Mark: So basically, you have a whole world full of people that are out there taking kids to soccer, out there hiking, doing something kind of useful, but it's a very rare one that stands out here dressed like you are, doing this thing. It just seems like a solution to something more personal. Other than the issue.

Me: Issues are important to me.

Mark: Well they're important to a lot of people.

Me: Well, the people who are involved in CCHR, presumably they have lives, it's something they feel is important and something they choose to do something about.

Mark: Are you a person that gets psychiatric or psychological therapy?

Me: I don't think that's relevant, but no I'm not.

Mark: Have you ever been?

Me: I don't think that's relevant, but most people have.

Mark: You think most people have had psychological treatment?

Me: I think an awful lot of people have gone to see a counselor at some point in their lives.

Mark: I guess - I know hardly anybody that ever has, but I guess you have your own circle of people and I have mine. But if somebody is driven to go see a psychiatrist, they've gotta have issues in their life.

Me: Everybody has issues in their life. Can you name me a single person who doesn't have issues in their life? L. Ron Hubbard had lots of issues in his life. He was a bigamist; he wrote forged checks; he was convicted of fraud and extortion. He wrote to the military services complaining that they wouldn't take him for psychiatric evaluation. Maybe one of the reasons that Hubbard was so anti-psych is because they turned him down.

Mark: Your issues would probably be a little more burning than most people if you end up out here in a red suit on the street like this.

Me: I find it fascinating that my choice of apparel is so interesting to you guys.

Mark: It's an attention-grabber.

Me: Yes it is. If I'm going to be out here, I want to be effective.

Mark: What I see is somebody who's out here trying to get attention. So what kind of therapy did you get?

Me: I'm not interested in talking about my past, I'm interested in talking about Scientology's crimes.

Mark: But you're the one who's making yourself the issue by being out here in a red suit.

Me: I'm not making myself an issue. I'm coming out here to tell people about Scientology. You want to talk about Scientology - cool.

Mark: Anybody who walks about with billboards and signs and a red suit is obviously trying to make themselves the issue.

Me: I disagree with that assessment. I disagree with that assessment.

Mark: You are the issue!

Me: Well, the people who see my sign don't come over here and ask me why I'm out here, they ask me about Lisa McPherson, they ask me about the Purification Rundown, they tell me about their own relatives who were hurt by Scientology ...

Mark: It just strikes me more as a cry for help on your part.

Me: I appreciate your evaluation. It strikes me as being wrong, but of course if I were mentally imbalanced I wouldn't know, would I?

Mark: I'm not saying you're mentally imbalanced, it's just pretty obvious that you're a person with a lot of issues in your life, and this is a distraction.

Me: If you say so. If that's what's true for you. It's not true for me.

Mark: It's not even necessarily true for me, that's just what it looks like.

Me: That's not the impression I get from other people who come up to talk to me at pickets.

Mark: I can't read your mind. When you present yourself as you do, it kind of makes you wonder - what's missing in this person's life that they have to go off and be a crusader.

Me: The people in CCHR, is something missing in their life?

Mark: I think you're being a bit more unique.

Me: I don't think being unique is a bad thing. Do you?

Mark: You can take unique to extremes.

Me: So it's better if we're all conformists?

Mark: It just kind of makes a person wonder, what's not happening in your life that you have to be out here?

Me: From my perspective, I have a very full, happy, fulfilling, rich life.

Mark: So like how many children do you have?

Me: I don't think that's any of your business.

Mark: I would say if you had children, you'd probably be paying attention to them instead of being out here.

Me: I've heard about people getting so involved with auditing and so involved in being on staff that they thoroughly neglected their children. There's a quote on the back of my flier about a woman whose children were taken away from her over her protests and sent to the Cadet Org.

Mark: But all this stuff that you're talking about is a distraction from you.

Me: I don't think so.

Mark: You're the one with the emotional difficulties here.

Me: I don't think so. Most of my friends and my family feel that I'm very well adjusted.

Mark: I'm not saying that you go out and spill your guts to everybody, but I just don't think it can possibly be as good as you present it.

Mark: So, are you married with a family and all that kind of stuff?

Me: I don't think that's any of your business and I'm not going to tell you about my personal life.

[A bypasser offers encouragement: "Good for you!"]

Me: You're welcome to your opinion, but your opinion is contrary to the facts. I'm not going to share the facts with you ...

Mark: It's not my opinion, but I'm curious. You do certain things which would lead a person to suspect certain things, I'm just curious whether you're someone who has a life, like with family and kids ...

Me: I definitely have a life. I recently posted to the internet about all the things I've been doing in the last month.

[Another picketer, Taniwha, shows up, and I give him a big hug and a bunch of fliers.]

[Shortly thereafter, a pedestrian stops me and tells me she was assaulted by a Scientology body router:

"One of them slapped me when I wouldn't take one of his fliers."

"Did you report it as an assault?"

"No, but I took pictures." ]

Me: Now, that's the kind of thing people think about Scientology. Why is that?

Mark: You get a lot of agreement from degraded people around Turk & Eddy St.

Me: I see, so all these people who walk by are degraded, huh?

Mark: Take a look at the majority of them. Look at the amount of these homeless people you're handing stuff out to. They're against everything. That's why they're failures.

Me: I don't think any human being is a failure. Sir.

Mark: This town is full of them. You see them walking down the street.

Me: My personal feeling is that there is no such thing as a person who's a failure. And I'm sorry if you feel otherwise.

Mark: That would be something I would expect to hear from someone with a lot of self-esteem issues. You know, if nobody's a failure then you can't be a failure.

Me: You know, you're not going to convince me that I have emotional problems by standing out here and talking to me.

Mark: I'm not saying you do! I'm just asking if you do. I'm just trying to find out what they are.

Me: But I just told you there aren't any, so how can you find out what they are?

Mark: You can't be perfect.

Me: I didn't say I'm perfect.

Mark: You know you are a person with a lot of pain in your life.

Me: Everyone has a lot of pain in their life.

Mark: To control it - this is a distraction. If you had to face it for a moment -

Me: What, all the populations I've enslaved? Is that my problem?

Mark: You're not getting what you want out of life.

Me: I have lots of things that I want out of life.

Mark: You would have never gone to the psychs if you had everything resolved for yourself.

Me: You don't know that I went to psychs.

Mark: You kind of avoided answering it in the negative. I pretty well can assume that you do

Me: Right - you can assume what you want to assume based on lack of information.

Mark: But I'm hitting home pretty close on some of these, I bet.

Me: You can bet all you want, but you're wrong, sir.

Mark: Well, but, if you were really a happy person, you wouldn't be doing this.

Me: Oh, that's completely wrong. I'm a happy person who feels that other people have the right to be happy to and not be locked up.

Mark: So, what about relationships?

Me: That's none of your business.

Mark: Do you have long-term relationships, or do you kind of have periodic relationships? I'm just curious. I don't know all about you.

Me: Interestingly enough, despite being curious, I've answered your questions, and you've refused to believe my answers.

Mark: Well, it's kind of a PR front I think.

Me: [I laugh long and loud.] A Scientologist talking about MY PR front. That's really funny.

Mark: You do admit, essentially without saying it, you've admitted to being a psych patient.

Me: My background has nothing to do with why I'm out here. Actually, that's not true, is it? Everybody's background has to do with doing what they do. My background is not the issue.

Mark: If you were leading a normal life -

Me: I AM leading a normal life. And many people, such as the people in CCHR who go out and protest, presumably are leading normal happy lives. Do you dispute that?

Mark: This is a substitute activity for not dealing with your emotions.

Me: Could you answer my question? Do you think the people who are involved in CCHR have lives?

Mark: I don't really know. I can't speak for them. I'm not talking with them. I'm talking with you.

Me: Well, I can tell you, I have a very full life.

Mark: But that's a distraction. Because you're the one in the red suit out here with all the signs.

Me: And you're trying to distract me.

Mark: I'm not interrupting you from a single person you're handing out a flier to. You can do that all day long. I don't really care.

Me: I didn't say you were interrupting me, I said you were distracting me.

Mark: I am just basically trying to find out what it is that drives a person to dress like this and come out here and do this thing. It's kind of a - I don't want to put a name to it, but it's curious.

Me: Well, I've answered you. I'm concerned about people whose freedom is being taken away by Scientology.

Mark: Listen, how about the homeless people. Are you concerned about them?

Me: Absolutely. I give 'em candy. I give money to organizations. But again, my history is not the issue. What happened to Lisa McPherson is happening to other people who are suffering the Introspection Rundown and being locked up, against their will, and being held in complete silence by Scientology policy. That's what concerns me. You're breaking the law.

Mark: You know what concerns me about that - underneath all this ...

[I lose a few moments as I flip my tape]

Me: Excuse me - have you dealt with the truth of the matter? Have you dealt with what Scientology is doing to people like Lisa McPherson?

Mark: Well let me just address -

Me: Could you please answer my question?

Mark: I've come out and talked to a number of you guys, and what happens is, you take some element of fact and you twist it to make it sound as bad as you can.

Me: Okay, take a look at this and tell me what on here is twisted.

Mark: What's twisted is, this lady was in a hotel. I've been to that hotel many times and it's not a place they keep people.

Me: And yet, according to Scientology's own logs, that's what happened to her.

Mark: She was enrolled as a guest. She never had to be restrained.

Me: She was restrained. According to Scts who were there, Lisa McPherson was restrained.

Mark: Well, you can say anything you want.

Me: I have Scientology's logs. Wanna read 'em?

Mark: No, I don't want to read them.

Me: Why not? Are you afraid to confront the truth?

Mark: Because I know how you guys work.

Me: Oh yeah? How's that?

Mark: You make up most of the stuff, you twist it -

Me: Well, you can go to the Internet and get the logs, you can check them with the state of Florida who got them filed from the church directly -

Mark: I spend a lot of time talking with you characters, Jim Henson and -

Me: Jim Henson? Keith Henson. Nice try.

Mark: You're all basically all on a vendetta of some sort, and who knows why you're on a vendetta, but my theory is that you don't have a life, you're very unhappy people.

Me: Well, I've already told you that your theory's wrong, and I'm sorry if you can't confront that truth.

Mark: Well, you would never have gone to psychs if you were such a happy person.

Me: You don't know that I've gone to psychs, and I AM a happy person, and many people that have gone to psychs in the past are today happy people.

Mark: Yeah, but I mean there's something underlying this if you had to go to psychs.

Me: So someone who's had a psychological problem is forever damaged and can never have a happy life. Is that what you're saying?

Mark: No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying just what I said.

Me: You're saying I'm not a happy person and so I'm out here picketing.

Mark: I'm saying you are now evidencing the fact that you're not a happy person. It's obvious that it's not handled. You haven't put it away.

Me: Well, I'm sorry, but your assessment of the situation is wrong.

Mark: I'll tell you what - people in that kind of situation have a hard time dealing with emotion, their own emotions, and so they try not to have them, they try to repress them, and they try to keep themselves busy with causes. That's real common knowledge.

Me: Now wait, first of all, I don't have a life, and now you're reversing yourself and saying I try to keep myself busy?

Mark: Keeping busy is not having a life. Evidence the workaholic -

Me: So if I were keeping myself busy with my kids, for example -

Mark: Evidence the workaholic, you know what i mean? That's a typical example of no life with lots of activity.

Me: So people in the Sea Org for 60 and 80 hour weeks for $30 a week - those people have a life? Or those people are committed?

Mark: These people are not out here in little red suits with a sign like you are.

Me: No, they're all down in Clearwater and coming out to missions in little army uniforms like a paramilitary organization.

Mark: But you are the one that's out here being a symbol. So you're basically telling me that you're a person with a lot of undealt-with issues.

Me: Well, I think you're getting the wrong message.

Mark: I don't even particularly want to stop you from doing what you're doing, but I would rather see you be a happier person.

Me: You know, I appreciate that. Thank you very much - and I can assure you, I am about the happiest person I know. So thank you for your concern.

Mark: That's hard for me to believe.

Me: I'm sorry you have trouble confronting the truth, but there it is. Why is it that Scientologists seem to have so much trouble confronting the truth? Or at least the ones that come out and talk to me?

Mark: Well, that's an interesting twist on things, since basically everything that you guys say is basically slander and lies.

Me: Can you point to a single thing that I say that's a lie?

Mark: Oh, let the parade begin.

Me: Pick one. One thing that I've said that's a lie.

Mark: Well, let's see [looks at my sign]: Scientology didn't hurt Lisa McPherson.

Me: Oh yes it did. Scientology hurt Lisa McPherson.

Mark: Bullshit!

Me: Scientology pumped Lisa McPherson full of drugs after holding her down. You don't think that's hurting her? Wanna read Scientology's logs? Wanna read what Valerie Demange said? Here!

Mark: Here. I'll read your thing here. But see, this is only your opinion, right?

Me: No, I'm stating facts.

Mark: This is not a document, this is something you printed up.

Me: I'm quoting people who say they've been hurt by Scientology.

Mark: You can quote all you want. That's not proof of anything. There's somebody with an opinion about everything.

Me: So when Dorothy Geary says that she was held in a cabin and Scientology wouldn't let her leave, she's lying?

Mark: Who knows? Who knows if she's telling the truth or not? But you guys take it on faith. If it's against Scientology, it's a fact, to you. If it's against Scientology, it's PR. See, that's how you twist things. Anything against us is a fact, anything that's for us is PR. That's how you twist the truth, and that's why I know that you're unhappy people, because you're on a vendetta. You're not on a truth crusade. You're on a vendetta.

Me: I try very hard to confirm everything that I print and that I publicize -

Mark: Bullshit. How'd you confirm what Dorothy Geary said? How'd you confirm that? Tell me that!

Me: Newspaper article. No, I didn't call her.

Mark: Did somebody see it happen? Do you have photographs? BULL-SHIT.

Me: Excuse me - do you disbelieve everything that you were not personally present at?

Mark: Absolutely not. How did you confirm hers?

Me: I read it in a newspaper article -

Mark: Oh, well that really makes it true! I mean, God almighty! You just hear a bunch of junk and you take it on faith.

Me: I tend to think that things that are in the newspaper are generally fairly likely to be factual. They can be wrong - newspapers can be wrong - but nobody has ever - I've had ONE thing - one thing pointed out to me by Jeff Quiros as being wrong on my web page, I immediately went back to the article, he was right, I changed my information.

Mark: Well, you've taken a bunch of stuff as facts.

Me: Well, I tell ya - I take what Scientology's own caretakers, the people who were babywatching Lisa McPherson, as fact. Should I not? Should I not believe Scientologists?

Mark: Well, I'll be happy to read the logs. I don't mind reading actual stuff.

Me: Good.

Mark: But you guys take anything that's against us, since you're on the vendetta -

Me: [pointing to sections of the logs]: Here's where she tried to escape ... here's where she was given drugs ...

Mark: Well, I'll read it later. The point is, you guys, and I'm talking about you guys as a generality - cause you all have the same party line -

Me: I don't think we do all have the same party line. Different people are protesting different things.

Mark: Oh nonsense. You talk about exactly the same issues. Everybody's got the same party line. You're drilled and (billed?) on it.

Me: We're DRILLED?!?

Mark: Yes.

Me: Who's drilling us?

Mark: She's a great example. Everybody I've ever talked to harped on this - none of them knew her, and they said, here - here's something we can use against them -

Me: That's all it is? So you don't think there was an actual problem that somebody was held captive until they died in Scientology?

Mark: The thing is, you never met her, you don't know her, you don't know anything about her, but you found something you feel you can use against us, and you're going to take it for all it's worth. And I have no idea why you picked us -

Me: I picked you cause you're hurting people.

Mark: Well, what about psychiatrists? How about picking people's brains, doing a lobotomy and basically heavy psych drugs? Now if that's not hurting people, I don't know what is.

Me: Have you ever had a lobotomy? ... So how can you know it's a bad thing? That's what people are always telling us about Scientology. You've never tried Scientology, how can you know it's a bad thing.

Mark: Do you seriously think that an ice pick behind somebody's eyes -

Me: Oh, please! They don't do that anymore!

Mark: So you think that running electricity through somebody's head is a good thing? Destroying brain matter?

Me: I think that in extremely rare cases it can help people. That's what the scientific evidence shows.

Mark: Seriously?!? Running 110 volts through someone's head -

Me: I don't know what the current procedure is.

Mark: Cutting out parts of a person's brain?

Me: Yes!

Mark: Why don't you protest that?

Me: Because in rare cases it helps people.

Mark: What about the ones that it doesn't help? Because they do 10,000 a year. They do a few thousand people a year on that stuff.

Me: With complete government oversight, and there are watchdog organizations, and the CCHR is already handling the abuses that happen in psychiatry. That's being handled.

Mark: So you defend running electricity through someone's skull.

Me: In rare occasions where it's beneficial.

Mark: How bout 10,000 a year? Would you let somebody do it to you?

Me: If I were convinced that it would help me. If I had a very serious problem.

Mark: But would you let 'em just to see how it felt?

Me: Oh, please! They don't do that just to see how it feels! You're full of shit!

Mark: But would you do it?

Me: No - not just to see how it feels! But if I had a health condition that I thought could be improved by it, I would. Probably.

Mark: You know what? There's been a $10,000 offer out for a psychiatrist that'll put himself through it and no one's taken 'em up on it.

Me: Well, you know, maybe psychiatrists don't have the physical problems that would be resolved by it.

Mark: You know, psychs are just trying to keep people quiet - and that makes 'em real quiet.

Mark: What kind of therapy did you get? I mean you had to have some serious problems. What'd they do for you? Drugs? Shock?

Me: You know, I had a Scientologist follow me home once and scream at me in the streets that he bet I'd had all kinds of psychiatric treatment and he bet I was on drugs right now!

Mark: Well you won't deny it.

Me: My past and my history are not the issue here.

Mark: Well, I think you're making yourself the issue.

Me: YOU'RE making it the issue.

Mark: You're in a little clown suit, you have the sign,

Me: [laughing] I'm not in a clown suit, these are my red picketing jammies!

Mark: ... you're becoming a symbol.

Me: I apparently am one to you.

Mark: So let's get back to boyfriends. How do you do on that front?

Me: I'm not going to talk to you about my relationships.

Mark: How about girlfriends?

Me: I'm not going to talk to you about my relationships. My relationships have nothing to do with my picketing.

Mark: I think they have everything to do with it.

Me: Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but you're wrong.

Mark: Cause you know if you were like any normal life, you wouldn't be here.

Me: Well, I tell ya, I have a normal life. It's a little more colorful than most.

Mark: Where's the husband? Where's the children? Where's the normal anything?

Me: What business is that of yours? Do you just want names so you can go harass people?

Mark: I promise you, I'm not going to follow you home.

Me: I'm glad. That's somebody else's hat, is it?

Mark: I just said, I'm not gonna do it.

Me: Good. And I said, That's somebody else's hat, is it?

Mark: You're just trying to twist something from what I said. I say something, and you say, Oh, so you're really saying blah! That's typical - your turns and tricks!

Me: I am, by nature, a pretty trusting person. I tend to believe what most people say, and most of the time I tend to find that that trust is not misplaced. Scientology has lied for so long about so many things, that I find it hard to believe anything Scientology says, as an organization, as a result, and I tend to believe that most Scientologists are lied to routinely, so the things they're saying, although they may believe them, are wrong.

Mark: Well we won't even talk about what we're saying. What we're saying is not the issue.

Me: What you're saying is exactly the issue. Scientology lies.

Mark: You're not even a member. You're not even a member. You're not even a member. You're somebody out on the fringes somewhere!

Me: The members of the CCHR aren't members of the APA. That doesn't stop them from picketing.

Mark: I guess it's a right.

Me: Of course it's a right! What do you mean you GUESS it's a right?

Mark: I mean, you have a perfect right to be out here.

Me: Yes I do. Thank you.


From humanrights@racerrecords.com Thu Dec 31 00:36:35 1998
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Scn comm in action again - Mark handles me (2/3)
From: humanrights@racerrecords.com (Kristi Wachter)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:36:35 -0800

Mark: I mean you're advertising when you are. And you're not advertising what you think you're advertising.

Me: Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I think I'm getting my message across pretty effectively.

Mark: I don't FEEL that way. It's just an observation. I don't have any feeling about it at all. I don't even take it personally.

Me: Are you suppressing your emotion? <grin> ... I'm sorry, I'm just playing with you.

Mark: I don't have any feeling about it at all. So, I'm just trying to find out what your thing is. I figured out Henson a long time ago.

Me: Oh yeah? So what's Henson's thing?

Mark: Ah, it's complicated -

Me: Oh yeah, so you figured it out but you don't want to share it with me.

Mark: No, not really.

Me: OK.

Mark: I didn't even share it with him. Everybody's unique. You're not all the same.

Me: Oh, thank you for admitting that. I thought you were saying we all had the same party line.

Mark: You do all have the same party line. You're all individuals. You're all unique individuals. But uh, I think I've figured out the common thread amongst you all, and it sure isn't this issue, because this issue, as near as I can figure out, the people that get attached to this crusade of yours, there's something about it that appeals to you, and why it appeals to you is what I'm trying to figure out.

Me: Why do people who are involved in CCHR go out and picket?

Mark: Cause you never knew Lisa McPherson ...

Me: Did the people who are involved in CCHR all personally know somebody who was harmed by psychiatry?

Mark: Look at all the people, all the trouble in this world ...

Me: Answer my question! Did the people who are involved in CCHR all personally know somebody who was hurt by psychiatry?

Mark: I have no idea. I don't know all these people.

Me: Well, they're motivated -

Mark: I can't answer for them. But I'm just talking about you, cause you are out here -

Me: Well, I didn't know Lisa McPherson, but when I come out here and picket, people come up to me and say things like, my brother died in Sacramento after doing the Purification Rundown. Now those people suffered real traumas, and they deserve to have their story told.

Mark: Well, I guess so. I don't know. So what? People die all the time. It doesn't mean that Scientology does it. If you realize what you guys are saying, is that it wasn't Scientology that did her in, you're saying it was just a health thing that wasn't taken care of. Maybe it should have been taken care of better.

Me: I believe that Scientology broke the law by holding Lisa against her will.

Mark: You know, I don't know if that's true. It's certainly possible -

Me: And I believe they did it in accordance with policy. Have you read the Introspection Rundown?

Mark: I certainly have.

Me: OK. So you know that it calls for holding people against their will, which is illegal.

Mark: We can talk about you, 'cause you're here.

Me: But I'm not the issue.

Mark: But you are!

Me: Well, I'm sorry if you feel that I am. I'm not interested in talking about myself.

Mark: I am convinced that you really are a person that doesn't believe in knowingly telling a falsehood.

Me: Thank you.

Mark: I suspect you wouldn't knowingly tell a falsehood. And I can appreciate that.

Me: Thank you.

Mark: When a person reads things and does things, there's a viewpoint, and there's a motivation.

Me: What do you think my motivation is?

Mark: That's what I'm trying to figure out.

Me: And if I told you that my motivation is to see Scientology stop hurting people, would you believe that? Because I'm a compassionate person and I don't want to see people being hurt?

Mark: Well, the reason I have trouble believing that is, this town is full of human misery.

Me: And you don't think I do other things that might help people, besides this?

Mark: Well, why don't you tell me.

Me: I do other things besides this that might help people.

Mark: But right now, on this particular day, you're supposedly going to save maybe one person when you could maybe save 50 people with some other activity.

Me: Who knows how many people I've saving? I happen to think it's a valuable activity. And I think that standing up to bullies is inherently valuable.

Mark: Bullies to who? Who's being bullied?

Me: Scientology acts like bullies.

Mark: Who is getting bullied?

Me: All of the critics, anybody who says anything bad against Scientology -

Mark: Now that's where you guys are basically not being truthful. See, here's the thing - I don't think that you would necessarily go off and say something that you knew was untrue, but you will generalize, and that's an untruth in itself.

Me: OK - I'm being bullied, Keith Henson's being bullied, Deana Holmes is being bullied, Stacy Young and her FAMILY are being bullied -

Mark: Let me take Keith Henson -

Me: Why don't you take me? I'm being bullied.

Mark: OK, how are you being bullied?

Me: People are coming out and lying about me to my neighbors.

Mark: Well, who struck the first blow?

Me: That's not the point! Scientology is acting like bullies!

Mark: You're trying to provoke something!

Me: I'm trying to provoke a change. I want Scientology to stop hurting people.

Mark: You expect to be able to sit there and basically slander these people and not -

Me: In what way am I slandering people? Everything that I say has basis -

Mark: Your sign is a lie.

Me: What about my sign is a lie? Scientology DOES hurt people, it DID hurt Lisa M, it DID hurt Wayne Whitney, it DID hurt Dorothy Geary.

Mark: I know Wayne Whitney. He used to stand out here, right? I know this guy's story. You know what the story is on Wayne Whitney? He spent some money to get some auditing, he didn't feel he got anything out of it, he got a refund, he didn't get everything he thought he should have gotten. He died on his own.

Me: That's right - he died on his own. Scientology, as nearly as we can tell, had nothing to do with his death. However, it hurt him while he was alive -

Mark: How? How did it hurt him? We tried to help him.

Me: By lying to him, and by taking his money for something that was fraudulent.

Mark: Ah - now there's the viewpoint thing. Now there's the thing. You probably wouldn't knowingly lie, but it all comes from your viewpoint. If your viewpoint is that it's a fraudulent activity, then -

Me: I'm going by the legal definition of fraud, which is lying to people to get money from them.

Mark: When have we ever been convicted of something like that?

Me: In France, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted of fraud.

Mark: LRH wasn't even in France to defend himself.

Me: Because he was afraid to be. Because he couldn't confront the truth any better than you can.

Mark: You think he's supposed to go march himself over to France just to answer some trumped-up charges?

Me: I would think so.

Mark: You wouldn't do it.

Me: How do you know?!

Mark: Listen, if somebody in France brought some charges against you, you would hop on a plane at your own expense to go there and spend three months of your life -

Me: I very well might. I certainly would appeal if I were convicted. So you feel that his conviction was completely meaningless.

Mark: Absolutely. No doubt about it. You know why? You see, even though, in this country, we've always won that in the legal sense, you've decided that you're overruling the courts.

Me: The fact that Scientology hasn't been convicted doesn't mean that they aren't doing it.

Mark: Yeah, but who's the one that has to judge that? You, or the courts?

Me: I think I'm perfectly capable of judging that. I think I'm perfectly capable of looking at Scientology materials, seeing what they say to people, finding that they charge money for them, and say that it's fraud.

Mark: I could just decide you're a Russian spy and start spouting that around too. That doesn't mean it's true.

Me: And rational people would ask you for your evidence. I can point to as much evidence as you want.

Mark: I know all the evidence you guys talk about. It's all twisted and put out of context, and it's all bullshit.

Me: Does Scientology say that the personality test, when they're evaluating somebody's personality test, do they or do they not say "this is a scientific test"?

Mark: This is the same exact kind of argument -

Me: Would you answer my question!?

Mark: I have no idea.

Me: Well, I've read the script, and they do.

Mark: This is the same line of stuff I get from all you guys. You give me the same stuff.

Me: Well, maybe it's cause it never gets answered.

Mark: I'd forgotten that particular one but I keep getting the same line. You just use this stuff as bombs - you don't care if it's really true.

Me: I absolutely care if it's true. If you have information that what I'm saying is not true, I would REALLY be grateful if you would provide it to me.

Mark: Oh, but you know what? This is the interesting twist - If I were to walk around in front of your house saying that you're a Russian spy, does the burden now come on to you to prove that you're not? No! It's my burden to prove it is.

Me: That's why I -

Mark: If I can't prove it, I should leave the fucking subject alone!

Me: That's why I provide so much information -

Mark: If I can't prove it in court -

Me: Oh, you have to prove it in court?! You aren't allowed to say anything unless you can prove it in court?!

Mark: I'll get to that answer. What I'm saying is, if I can't prove that you're a Russian spy, I have no fucking business going out there in front of your house with a sign saying you are.

Me: I'm not sure I agree with that.

Mark: You know why? Cause it's slander.

Me: If it's FALSE it's slander.

Mark: That's right. We have courts to prove what's false and what's true as far as the legal sense. And you're talking about the legal issue of fraud. It's a legal issue - you don't have the right to be the one that decides it. But you guys are senior to the courts. Even though the courts won't say it is, YOU'LL say it is, and you'll basically flaunt it in front of people and slander the hell out of everybody that's involved in it.

Me: I don't believe I'm slandering or libelling Scientology -

Mark: You're probably on one side of the definition of it, but you're doing it -

Me: According to the legal definition, I believe that truth is a defense, and I believe that what I'm saying is true -

Mark: I'm saying you're on this side of the legal definition of slander -

Me: Right - which means that I'm not slandering you!

Mark: Yeah, but you're - let's say you're badmouthing us.

Me: Okay, I'm badmouthing you. I'll go with that.

Mark: See, until it's proved -

Me: No, I'm sorry, I disagree. I have a right to say whatever I want, and I take the consequences if you guys want to take ME to court.

Mark: So should I be out in front of your house with a sign that says "Is whatever your name is a Russian spy"? Don't you think I'd be out of line to do that?

Me: I think it'd be morally and ethically wrong, but I don't think it'd be illegal.

Mark: Okay - that's exactly the corollary of what you're doing.

Me: Well, but you have no evidence that I'm a Russian spy. I have evidence that Scientology is committing fraud on a daily basis.

Mark: Your evidence wasn't enough to convict us in the court.

Me: I don't think my evidence has been tried in the court.

Mark: It has.

Me: Actually, in the Cristofferson case, Scientology was found guilty twice, and it was overturned on a technicality. Scientology was convicted in the courts twice for fraud.

Mark: And it was overturned.

Me: On a technicality. That doesn't mean that Scientology was not found guilty.

Mark: It means we didn't get a fair trial, for Chrissake.

Me: Okay, so I'll tell you what. If you think I'm slandering or libelling Scientology by saying that Scientology is committing fraud - sue me.

Mark: It's not up to you to prove that you're not a Russian spy. It's not up to us to prove we're not committing fraud. We are basically conducting our reli- our activitives, and you guys are merely harassing us, you're staying on this side of the law -

Me: I'm not harassing you.

Mark: What do you call this?!

Me: I call this raising public awareness about Scientology's crimes.

Mark: But we have no crimes.

Me: You do have crimes! Scientology's committing fraud on a daily basis.

Mark: But you are not the law.

Me: That's true. I am not the law. I am, however, part of a democracy, in which an important function of citizenry is to speak freely to alert other people to the dangers of the society.

Mark: But how can you say that we're bullying you?

Me: First of all, you're picketing my HOME -

Mark: Well, who started the whole fucking nonsense?

Me: Hey! Most people don't think it's appropriate to picket people's homes, regardless.

Mark: Who's most people?

Me: People I've talked to. Fine - the people I've talked to. So you think that it's wrong to go around saying that psychiatry hurts people even though it helps more people than it hurts?

Mark: That's off the track I think, though. You say that people are being bullied, right?

Me: When I tell people that Scientology comes out and pickets my home, the people I talk to, who may all be sympathetic to me and therefore may all be unobjective if you think so, pretty universally think that's horrendous.

Mark: So you have a perfect right to harass everybody without getting harassed back, right? You can harass but nobody can do anything to you, right?

Me: Let's put it this way - I was STALKED. I was STALKED, and that's illegal, and I've never done that to anybody.

Mark: Well, you know, you should send charges to whoever stalked you.

Me: I filed a police report.

Mark: If you think you have a right to go harass us -

Me: I'm not harassing you!

Mark: Oh, you don't call this harassment? That's really stupid! That's really self-serving.

Me: And Scientology does NOT have the right to break the law and STALK people -

Mark: Oh yeah? Who provoked everything?

Me: Excuse me - I can provoke you legally all I want and you STILL don't have the right to stalk me!

Mark: I didn't.

Me: No, you didn't. Scientology agents did.

Mark: And you're assuming somebody did.

Me: I am not assuming. Scientology agents got in the car and followed me through the streets of Los Angeles. That's stalking.

Mark: Tell me, what is the provocateur of all this.

Me: Doesn't matter who provoked it - Scientology does not have the right to break the law and STALK people.

Mark: That's very self-serving, isn't it. You can go provoke people all you want, but -

Me: OK, fine - let's talk about provocation -

Mark: You can provoke all you want - quit interrupting me - I let you talk - You are acting like you have the right to be as provocative and do all the harassment you want, but if anybody does anything to you, that's real evil. Well that's really stupid, because life doesn't work like that. If you throw a dead fish in someone's yard, and they throw one back in yours, you don't have a right to complain. See that's what's wrong. You guys are on a vendetta, that's why you're sick. You don't care about any kind of fairness at all. You're totally on a vendetta -

Me: I believe I do care about fairness.

Mark: - because you're very unhappy people, and this is a solution and a distraction to the unhappiness in your life.

Me: You're wrong about me being unhappy. I'm a very happy person. I thought we cleared that up already.

Mark: We cleared it up but there's a lot you don't answer about yourself.

Me: That's because I'm not the issue.

Mark: Anybody in a red suit and sign is the issue.

Me: I'm the issue to the extent I let myself be made one, and I'm not going to let you badger me into telling you about my life.

Mark: You're the one that's making yourself the issue.

Me: Sorry, but you're wrong. I'm making Lisa McPherson and Scientology's illegal activities the issue.

Mark: What do you think people see when they walk by? They see somebody in a little red suit, with a sign - they see you.

Mark: Am I the only one that's wrong?

Me: Everybody's wrong sometimes.

Mark: Do you ever question the factuals and stuff that people tell you about Scientology?

Me: All the time. I don't want to be out here telling people things that are wrong.

Mark: But don't you realize that just by saying things in a twisted way, it's just as false as an outright lie?

Me: What am I saying that's twisted?

Mark: What are you saying that's twisted?

Me: Yes. What am I saying that's twisted?

Mark: Well, look what you're omitting about the Lisa McPherson story.

Me: What am I omitting?

Mark: What are you omitting?

Me: Yes. What am I omitting?

Mark: You're omitting why she was in the hotel to begin with. But you don't want to put that.

Me: My understanding is that she was being held because she was PTS Type III. Is that wrong?

Mark: See, you're twisting it as you tell it.

Me: No, I said that was my understanding. Is that wrong?

Mark: There's an element that's true and an element that's wrong.

Me: What's the element that's wrong?

Mark: The thing of it is, she had requested to leave that hospital and requested to stay at the hotel because she probably had better friends there than she would have in the hospital. She didn't like the idea of being at the hospital.

Me: In one of the fliers that I hand out I do in fact include that information.

Mark: Why do you boil it all down to this? You're boiling all the truth down to this, which is a twisted lie. [I think he was pointing at my sign, "Did standard tech kill Lisa McPherson?"] You know what, standard tech couldn't have killed her. What happened to kill her was an embolism. This isn't what you're saying. The truth is, she died of an embolism.

Me: L. Ron Hubbard said that it could in fact kill people.

Mark: But that doesn't mean that it did.

Me: L. Ron Hubbard said, "There will always be some failures as sometimes they can't be kept alive."

Mark: See, you're twisting it right there. You say it kills people. What that quote said, they die even though you try to help them. You're paraphrasing in a twisted way.

Me: I didn't paraphrase. I quoted it.

Mark: All that says is if somebody's in bad shape ... why are you twisting what that thing said for your own purposes? That's because you have a vendetta.

Me: This particular thing is not about that quote.

Mark: You just lied to me right there. You told me that LRH said it kills people. You showed me a quote that says the exact opposite.

Me: You're right. I made a mistake. What I said is not reflective of what that quote said.

Mark: Well I appreciate it. What I'm trying to do with you guys, I'm trying to get it on a factual basis. Quite frankly, my opinion is, I'm not really like an officer of the church, I'm a public member who basically just doesn't like this crap - my personal opinion is, if you guys approached things on a very factual basis, you wouldn't get any grief from us. One of the things that you and others have been accused of - I see newspaper articles occur, and some of the newspaper articles are balanced, and are factual and nobody gives them any crap about that. But when we get a real hit piece, we do something about it.

Me: Actually, it seems to me -

Mark: See, we never have argued the factual stuff. But we do argue against stuff like your sign, which is a hit piece.

[There was a group of teenagers handing out sleeping bags, and I paused to thank them. One of them asked for a flier.]

Mark: I'm saying you're not spreading information - this is slander. This is like sound byte stuff. This is what they do in politics. It's not designed to educate.

Me: I think this is all factually correct -

Mark: We've both agreed that isn't true -

Me: No, what I said is that the Hubbard quote did not explicitly say that the tech kills people.

Mark: Well, where do you get that quote from?

Me: I believe that holding Lisa against her will and enforcing Scientology's prohibitions against most medical treatment - I believe specifically that holding Lisa against her will - which was in full accordance with the tech - killed her.

Mark: Now you're lying again, because our policy is to always do medical treatment. You're ignoring that. If you go in the org, there's a sign that says "Don't come here to use this stuff to cure your ills."

Me: So why does Scientology still push Dianetics, that has so many claims of medical benefits and cures?

Mark: Dianetics is in addition to medical treatment.

Me: Dianetics specifically says that Dianetic processing will cure things like arthritis and asthma.

Mark: And it has done so, many times. Let me tell you a true story. This is my personal story. Back in the 70s, when I first got into Scientology, I did a course on how to audit Dianetics. My mother had arthritis. Just moving her fingers like that was painful. I audited her for about 7 hours, on Dianetics. The arthritis went away for 20 years. It's now starting to creep back in now that she's almost 80. But she's had 20 years without arthritis and it went away with one session, or two sessions. But that's not to say that we basically kept her away from the doctor. We did all the medical stuff. She did this on top of it, because it helped. Guys like me are mystified by people like you who come in here and protest it, because we've seen the real thing.

Me: You know what? I know that you've seen Scientology do really good things for people, and I appreciate that.

Mark: So, it's not something to be attacked.

Me: See, there's a place where most Scientology and I disagree. I think that something that's good that has bad elements still needs to have those bad elements pointed out. I think democracy is good, and it has bad elements, and those things need to be pointed out.

Mark: Well, let me address Lisa McPherson. Cause there's another viewpoint. This is my perspective, and I have a different point of view. But just look at the story told this way. Basically, the girl is in a car accident, and she starts having quite a reaction, acting really strangely, and she's taken to this hospital. She realizes she's in a hospital where she's likely to get psychiatric treatment, which she does not want. She asks to be taken out and kept in a hotel room, which they do. She's given food, and she's given water, which she unfortunately does not drink. All of a sudden, she has these serious symptoms going on, and she is rushed to a hospital and dies on the way. The worst name that I could give that, would be probably negligence. That's the worst thing I could give that story.

Me: Well, that's one of the two felony counts that was filed against Scientology.

Mark: It could have been that - I don't know all the facts - maybe somebody there was not paying close enough attention to how much she had to be watched as far as drinking her water and stuff like that. It's possible that they should have had more medical attention to her. But she was in a hotel room, and I've been in that hotel. It's not a jail. I've been there. I think, probably, since that whole thing, I'm almost positive - I don't know for sure - that since this whole thing, someone has gone, that was kind of a screwup, we've gotta change our operating basis here, we've gotta have doctors in more often or something like that.

Me: Well, 6 months after Lisa McPherson died, something very similar happened in Europe.

Mark: Well, there's hundreds of thousands of people involved in this thing. We're like a fairly big operation by now ...

Me: I thought there were 8 million Scientologists.

Mark: Well, probably not actually. I'm not making that claim. Don't put somebody else's claims on me, cause I didn't make them. ... What I'm certain has happened is somebody said "whoops" and basically internal policies have changed. But you guys are treating it as some conspiratorial plan on our part to kill our parishioners.

Me: well, I'll tell you what. I don't believe that Scientology plans to kill its own parishioners. I will state that to anybody who wants to know. I happen to think that Scientology, in locking people up per policy, is putting a lot of people at risk and is committing grave human rights violations, but I don't believe - and I will tell anybody who wants to know - I don't believe that Scientology is actively trying to kill anyone.

Mark: I don't really know what her mental state was, I don't know what restraints someone might have done to her, since she was kind of freaked out - I have no idea.

Me: Whatever restraint was done to her - and according to Scientology's logs, she was restrained - Scientology does NOT have the right to do that. It's against the law. Even if she's incapacitated and even if she asked to be with them, at the point where she became a danger to herself and others, the way the law works, she has to go somewhere else where professionals could care for her. Because professionals were not caring for her, she died. Because people were caring for her in accordance with the tech which mandated locking her up - she died.

Mark: Now that, I think, probably is an exaggeration. What is this restraint that you're talking about? If you had somebody - and I don't even know if this is true - if you had a relative in your house and they were wandering around, and if they wanted to wander outside, and you figure they might be run over by a car, would that be like morally wrong to restrain them? If you had a relative in your house, like your mother, if you lived with your parents or something like that, and they started to wander out in the street, would you be wrong to restrain them?

Me: No, but I would be wrong to keep them under my custody for a number of days.

Mark: So you would probably restrain somebody under certain circumstances.

Me: For a short period of time until the authorities could be called and they could be gotten into proper professional care.

Mark: See, your whole argument boils down to a very exact, very precise error.

[Bill Crawford comes by and I greet him enthusiastically. He greets me and my handler, saying, "Are you Mark? My name is Bill crawford." - and thus I learn my handler's name. I tell Bill I want to talk to him later about the alterations in Science of Survival, and we continue on, Bill handling Taniwha, Mark handling me.]

[As I flip my tape over, a young lady approaches me and asks for the 30-second intro to Scientology. I ask, "From the critical perspective or the Scientology perspective?" She asks for the critical perspective, so I tell her why I'm picketing and what my concerns are. She turns to Mark and asks him for his side, and he basically falls down on the job - he says he's not going to try to refute what I've just said, and suggests she buy a book. The young lady turns back to me to see if I'll give her the basics on Scientology, and I'm happy to oblige. I explain Dianetics - the concept of the reactive mind, and the fact that the single scientific experiment disproved its existence - and describe the purported benefits of being Clear[tm], then I tell her about OT and the supposed benefits of OT8, including mastery over MEST, and point out that if any OTs really existed, they could get rid of us picketers by just wishing us away. I don't go into much of the Xenu/BTs stuff. Afterward, Mark is ever-so-slightly complimentary of my descriptions:

Mark: Well, I thought that was pretty well done. I thought you did a pretty good job with the lady. It wasn't completely red in the face ranting and raving. Me: Thank you. Although when my face turns red it matches the rest of my outfit. ]

Mark: So it's narrowing down to it's not this big generality that we've got this big operation going to damage people -

Me: No, I think you have a big operation going to damage people. I believe that.

Mark: Well, it's gotta be some other way than restraining people, cause how many people in the world do you think get into this kind of situation?

Me: Not many, but way too many to be acceptable to me. One is too many to be acceptable to me.

Mark: Well, there's ONE ...

Me: Want a list of people who have been held against their will by Scientology?

Mark: I'm not going to take their word for it.

Me: Why not?

Mark: I'll tell you, when people get on vendettas, they're not always truthful. Every organization has the most outrageous lies told about them -

Me: And yet Scientology's own policies state that people can be held against their will. I've read them, I understand them, and people are acting in accordance with those policies when they hold people against their will.

Mark: I bet if that whole policy was cancelled, I bet you'd still be out here. You'd find something else.

Me: You're right, there are other things that bother me about Scientology. What I said to Bill Crawford just two weeks ago was, I don't think there's one thing that Scientology could do to get me to stop picketing, but if there were one, it would probably be publicly and verifiably getting rid of the Introspection Rundown. That's definitely my biggest concern. The people that are being held at Gold Base is another one.

Mark: Oh, so you have this theory that people are being held there. That's an interesting theory.

Me: Well, you know, it's supported by several sworn affidavits.

Mark: Oh, yeah, but you know these guys - I just know that some of these characters -

Me: Which characters specifically?

Mark: Oh, you know, Vaughn Young, Stacy Young. I used to know them a little bit back in the old days.

Me: You know, when I post this on a.r.s., they're going to want to know which Mark it was - are you sure you don't want to tell me?

Mark: No. a.r.s. is a hate group.

Me: I completely disagree with that. Have you ever read a.r.s.?

Mark: A little bit. People have printed stuff off for me. I don't really go into it.

Me: So you're looking at very selective bits that have come off of it, so you can't say that a.r.s. is a hate group, 'cause you don't have enough information to base that on.

Mark: I've read a quantity of it, I'll tell you that.

Me: Do you think you've read more than 10% of the postings?

Mark: I doubt it.

Me: I do too - it's a huge group! [I laugh]


From humanrights@racerrecords.com Thu Dec 31 00:37:13 1998
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Scn comm in action again - Mark handles me (3/3)
From: humanrights@racerrecords.com (Kristi Wachter)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:37:13 -0800

Mark: I'm trying to point out that - this stuff here is only designed to inflame people. It's not designed to inform.

Me: I disagree with that.

Mark: If somebody reads that, what do you think they're going to do? They're going to get inflamed. They're not going to sit there

Me: What is not factual about it?

Mark: This is opinion.

Me: What is not factual about it?

Mark: [I point to each line on my sign:]What is not factual about this?[Scientology hurts people.] What is not factual about THIS? [Scientology hurt Lisa McPherson.]

Mark: The whole thing.

Me: Scientology hurt Lisa McPherson, it hurt Wayne Whitney, and it hurt Dorothy Geary!

Mark: Let's just get back to what I'm saying. I'm trying to say that this is a very distilled, one-sentence thing, it's your opinion.

Me: Well, you know there's not a lot of room on a picket sign!

Mark: It's your opinion. It's not a fact, it's opinion. You don't let people draw their own opinions, you're basically just giving them your opinion for them. See, you are merely trying to inflame others to hatred.

Me: You're wrong. You're competely wrong. I don't hate Scientologists; I don't encourage people to hate Scientologists.

Mark: I'm not saying you are.

Me: Well, then what are you saying I'm -

Mark: Hatred of the organization.

Me: Hatred of the organization's problems. Hatred of the organization's illegal acts, yes. I think hurting peopel should be hated. I think locking people up is an act should be hated. So if that's inciting people to hatred - well, okay. But I'm not inciting people to hate Scientologists.

Mark: You're not really out giving factual information.

Me: I'm giving them factual information. What here is not factual?

Mark: It's your conclusion.


Mark: Nothing is factual.

Me: You're wrong.

Mark: It's a conclusion.

Me: I think everybody is capable of drawing their own conclusions. I give them references to where I heard about things so they can go check 'em out for themselves. I tell people, Don't take my word for it.

Mark: Bullshit! You've got it right there -

Me: I can go back to so many of my picket tapes - just this morning I was telling people 'don't take my word for it.'

Mark: I'm talking about the sign.

Me: Well, you know, I can't carry a 25-million-foot billboard.

Mark: You're not handing out the actual logs.

Me: I AM handing out the actual logs! I gave you a copy of the actual logs!

Mark: You're not actually handing out the actual autopsy report and let people draw their own conclusions.

Me: Right here - Scientology's own web site - I put it right on my fliers so people can see it for themselves.

Mark: See, you're on a vendetta.

Me: You know what? I don't know what vendetta means, exactly. Would you word-clear that for me?

Mark: You're basically trying to incite hatred of the church.

Me: No I'm not.

Mark: What's this about then?

Me: I think people need to know that Scientology is hurting people. You - as the church, not individually - have spent lots and lots of money to let people know how Scientology can help people. I'm giving them the other side of the story.

Mark: I think people who get their nose out of joint about something and basically go on a hate vendetta and foment hatred - which you are doing - have got big serious open wound sores in their life.

Me: Would you say the same thing about everybody who protests with CCHR?

Mark: We're not talking about that, are we?

Me: You just said that people who go out and protest and foment hatred - as CCHR does against psychiatry - have serious emotional problems. Do you feel that that applies to everybody in CCHR?

Mark: Absolutely not.

Me: Then you are making suppressive generalizations.

Mark: No, you guys are basically on a vendetta. It's a more apparent thing.

Me: You know, I don't know exactly what 'vendetta' means -

Mark: It's attack just for the sake of attack. It's not to inform, it's not to enlighten, it's not to uplift - you're not trying to uplift anybody, you're trying to enturbulate them.

Me: I know my own motivation better than you do. You've already said you can't read my mind, and I can tell you - I'm not attacking for the sake of attacking.

Mark: Your fliers are totally designed to enturbulate others, not to enlighten them.

Me: My fliers are designed to give people information about things that are illegal.

Mark: Yeah, but there's another evil intention underneath that. It's not good.

Me: How do you know that?

Mark: Because you're not very open to seeing actually like seeing another point of view. You're stuck on your own

Me: My point of view was based on what I consider to be a lot of credible information. What point of view would you like me to adopt?

Mark: You've really only gotten one point of view.

Me: That's not true. I've heard from a lot of Scientologists - Bill Crawford has told me how Scientology has been really beneficial in his life, and I think that's great. Scientology has been really beneficial in your life - is that a fair statement?

Mark: I think so.

Me: Okay - I think that's great. The problem is, that the benefits to you are coming at the expense of serious harm to some other people.

Mark: That's absolute nonsense.

Me: No it's not!

Mark: Nothing that I have gotten - See, you're not telling the whole side of the story. There's a positive side to all this. You're slandering people. You know there's two sides to the story, but you aren't interested in giving the other side of the story. You're only interested in slandering the hard side. [huh?]

Me: What about the people who come out and picket me? They don't say anything nice about me. They only say 'Kristi Wachter is a religious bigot,' which is a lie.

Mark: Well, you're just trying to provoke us.

Me: You didn't answer my objection. What about those people? Why don't they say anything nice about me at the same time as they're saying something bad?

Mark: We don't know an awful lot about you. We only know what you present - your harassment.

Me: I try to be as polite and friendly as I can to everyone I meet, including Scientologists; I don't try to reveal upper levels to people who don't want to know it yet -

Mark: Well that, I appreciate. Cause people who do that are true and utter assholes. But anyway - I won't get to that.

Me: You know that I'm polite and friendly. You could at least say Kristi Wachter is polite and friendly and a religious bigot - even though that part would be a lie.

Mark: Well, you know, I think that the signs that are put in front of your house are pretty much essentially the same kind of thing that you're doing.

Me: Except that there's no factual basis for what they're saying. There's plenty of factual basis for what I'm saying.

Mark: See, you're only trying to enturbulate those people on the subject. You're trying to basically make it so that they'll hate us.

Me: No, I'm trying to get them to help Scientology get it's ethics in.

Mark: Oh, that's an absolute lie. You're basically trying to turn them off, and basically inflame them -

Me: I'm trying to get them to act against Scientology's illegal activities, absolutely.

Mark: Exactly.

Me: What's wrong with that?! If Scientology is breaking the law, what's wrong with getting people to help them stop?

Mark: It's the law's job to take care of illegal activities if they exist. It's not yours.

Me: Excuse me, I'm a citizen of a democracy. It's my responsibility to make sure that the democracy is a safe and beneficial place.

Mark: The IRS fought with us for years, finally said, OK, you're a religion. But no - you guys are still fighting the battle.

Me: No - the IRS did not say you're a religion, they said you get tax-exempt status. The government does not have the ability to decide what's a religion.

[Mark wanders off for a moment, muttering something like, "you're too tough for me."]

Me: I'm too tough for you? My goodness.

[And he's back:]

Mark: So the point I'm trying to make is, the law has basically looked at this and made the decision on it, but you guys are still off trying to prove that it went the other way, but it didn't . We have basically proven our legitimacy in the world, but you guys are claiming that that proof is false.

Me: I'm not out here primarily arguing whether Scientology is a religion or not. When it comes up, I'll give my opinion -

Mark: You say it's a scam. If you say it's a scam, it's not a religion.

Me: Not necessarily -

Mark: Give me a break. A religion is a spiritual activity, which is obviously not a scam. A scam is a scam - is a commercial activity. You just told that person -

Me: I told that person, when it came up, that I thought Scientology was not a church because it doesn't present itself as one in all countries in the world. Why is that? Why doesn't Scientology claim to be a church?

Mark: Now you're off on a different subject. We're not talking about that.

Me: Yes we are! Why don't you answer my questions?

Mark: I don't know! I don't make those decisions!

Me: Well - doesn't it make you wonder?

Mark: It doesn't make me wonder at all.

Me: Ah. Okay.

Mark: I go by my perception, not by what a bunch of idiots have told me -

[A bus passes by, and I yell, "Scientology hurts people!"]

Mark: See, you're just taking these assholes' statements as facts. You don't know if they're true or not. I know probably half a dozen guys, they're like ex-Scientologists, I've known some of them personally, to a greater or lesser degree, and then, years later, I hear all of these horrible things they attest to - they make these affidavits, and I know damn well they're not true, 'cause I was there.

Me: You were there during every last bit of Vaughn's stay in Scientology?

Mark: I didn't say that. What I said was, there are certain things that they say -

Me: Such as specifically - since I obviously picked a bad example -

Mark: You have generallized what I said.

Me: Okay, specifically, something that someone has said in an affidavit - what do you know that's not true?

Mark: Tell me something they said.

Me: I don't have their affidavits with me.

Mark: I don't either. Occasionally, there are some things I have personal knowledge of -

Me: Is everything bad that Vaughn said about being in Scientology wrong?

Mark: I have no idea. It's a trick question. Don't try any trick questions on me.

Me: It wasn't a trick question, but you're right, it was a bad question.

Mark: The core of what you and I are talking about is - is what you're engaged in truly an ethical activity?

Me: That's the first time I've heard that today, but anyway -

Mark: The point I'm trying to make is - you've got hold of lots of various things, like affidavits and things people have put on the net - and you've taken them at face value. I personally think that these characters like - Ehrlich - I knew him a little bit, not much, he probably wouldn't remember me but I remember him - I remember some of the things and places that he talked about - and it's become very evident to me that these guys concoct stories completely out of whole cloth.

Me: Okay, specifically what story did Dennis Ehrlich concoct out of whole cloth? Can you name one?

Mark: I don't remember.

Me: Now, see, that makes it very hard for me to know which stuff to believe and which stuff to disbelieve.

Mark: Well, you wouldn't take my word for it anyway.

Me: How do you know? I took Jeff Quiros' word for it. I mean, I didn't completely take his word for it, but I went home, checked my information, found out it was right, and updated my information.

Mark: Yeah, but you're just going to check what I say against an affidavit. And you're just going to believe them.

Me: First of all, you're not giving me anything hard to check out, so it's hard for me to check anything. Secondly, Scientology has lied so many times, why would I believe things that Scientology says?

Mark: I'm trying to make my point, not to make footnotes.

Me: I can tell you that, in response to the point you're trying to make, I would give anything you told me limited credibility. I would not assume that it was true, but I would not assume that it was false. I would try to verify it, and if I couldn't verify it, and it contradicted something on my web page, I would put it up and say, I haven't been able to verify it, but somebody said there was contradictory information. So there.

Mark: But you know what you wouldn't do?

Me: What's that?

Mark: You wouldn't tell the whole story.

Me: Which whole story would I not tell?

Mark: You wouldn't tell the whole story of all the people that have been gotten off of drugs by what we do.

Me: Scientology does that already. That information is on the net. And, I don't believe that Scientology has gotten very many people off drugs. I happen to believe that's a lie.

Mark: Okay, and you wouldn't put in your story the amount of people that have learned to read and write - how many people have lost their arthritis.

Me: I haven't seen any hard evidence for that. Scientology puts out its fluff pieces, and Scientology lies on its own web site. I put a reference to Scientology's web page on my web pages, and on my fliers, so people can go there and see what Scientology has to say for themselves.

Mark: What hard evidence do you have for this bullshit that you're talking about? Not a lot.

Me: In terms of locking people up, I've read Scientology's own policies in Scientology red volumes, and that's pretty convincing to me.

Mark: I've read the same things, and I don't get the same thing out of them that you do.

Me: That's interesting. So you don't believe that the Introspection Rundown calls for the case supervisor to determine whether the PC can leave.

Mark: I don't remember that particular aspect.

Me: Well, I've got it right here. You want to read it?

Mark: But you know why? I'm not looking for the worst in everything.

Me: I'm not LOOKING for the worst. I'm looking at the facts that are there. I'm looking at the fact that many people claim to have been locked up by Scientology. I went and looked for the evidence, and the evidence points out that Scientology has policies on locking people up. How am I supposed to look at that differently? Why SHOULD I look at it differently? Why should I pretend that the evidence isn't there?

Mark: You are basically now engaged in tunnel vision.

Me: I don't think so.

Mark: You're focused on trying to find and prove and inflate the bad - you don't look at the other stuff, 'cause the other stuff is questionable to you.

Me: The other stuff is IRRELEVANT to me. Scientology could be the best organization in the world, and if it's locking people up, I'd still think people should know about it!

Mark: How many people total do you have solid, hard evidence have got locked up?

Me: All of them, because of Scientology's policies!

Mark: How many do you have hard evidence got locked up? How many?

Me: What do you consider hard evidence?

Mark: Well, what do YOU consider hard evidence?

Me: Okay, what I consider hard evidence is, credible, personal stories, and all of the ones I've heard about are credible, personal stories.

Mark: How many? Less than a dozen, more than a dozen?

Me: [I look at my web page printout] Over 16 on my web page, and those are the ones I know about.

Mark: I'm sure if it ever happened, everybody would squawk about it.

Me: I'm not, cause Scientology has all those non-disclosure agreements, all those gag orders -

Mark: Non-disclosure agreements have nothing to do with what you're talking about. You're just throwing it in gratuitously because it seems to serve your story, but in actual fact -

Me: I'm sorry, I think it's relevant and I thought you might be interested to know. If you're not, just ignore it.

Mark: It's gratuitous -

Me: I don't think it is. I think it's relevant.

Mark: You seriously think someone got thrown in the can and basically held there and wouldn't tell about it because somebody made him sign some non-disclosure agreement? What nonsense!

Me: No, I think they wouldn't tell about it becasue they were afraid of Scientology, whether it's blackmail or physical assault.

Mark: Oh, that's what you guys like to talk about is fear, isn't it? But you know what? Have we shot anybody who does this kind of stuff?

Me: I don't claim that you do.

[I flip my tape again ... we're talking about attacks on critics, people having their tired slashed - Mark says no one has had their tires slashed, and I say they have]

Mark: Who knows who did it? That's just like conjecture.

Me: But you said nobody has had their tires slashed, and I corrected you!

Mark: I've been vandalized, I don't blame it on you guys. See, we basically tolerate all this stuff -

Me: You have to tolerate it. It's a free society.

Mark: Let me finish. We've tolerated this stuff for many years, and we've not killed anyone, we've not shot anyone, we've not done anything actually harmful beyond taking legal remedies.

Me: That's not true.

Mark: Okay, who's been hurt in retaliation?

Me: Who's been hurt in retaliation was not really what I was addressing. But who's been hurt in retaliation would be - Gerry Armstrong, the woman in Australia who's name escapes me at the moment -

Mark: Do you believe Gerry Armstrong? Why do you believe him? He's a thief. Why is he believable over somebody else?

Me: First of all, I don't automatically assume that thieves are not believable, but what did he steal?

Mark: When he left LRH's area, he left with a whole bunch of LRH's personal belongings, because he was helping on the biography project and he stole them.

Me: And it's my understanding that the judge ruled that it was acceptable for him to do that because he needed that stuff to protect his well-being because he was in such fear and such danger.

Mark: That's the usual language that you guys say.

Me: That was a JUDGE who said that, after weighing the evidence.

Mark: I think the day is past when judges are going to get snowed like that in court.

Me: I don't happen to think that judge was snowed.

Mark: The point is, he's a thief.

Me: Was he convicted of theft?

Mark: No, but you and I know he took somebody else's stuff.

Me: Was he convicted of theft?

Mark: As far as I know, he wasn't.

Me: Okay, then, have you just slandered him by accusing him of a criminal act that he was not convicted of?

Mark: Exactly. But it's no different than what you're doing.

Me: Yes it is. I have evidence for the things that I allege, your evidence was thrown out in court.

Mark: You have this evidence, but no court would ever buy it. No prosecutor would ever push this.

Me: Courts have bought it, actually, in France, and in America, juries bought the idea that Scientology was committing fraud -

Mark: Where?

Me: Everywhere! Everywhere, in every operation, in every day, you lie to people to get money from them. That's fraud. That's the legal definition of fraud.

Mark: I keep catching you in these small little twistings of truth and you keep slipping out and changing the subject on me. The fact is, you guys are basically doing a very biased, self-serving vendetta -

Me: In what way is this serving me?

Mark: It serves you because it gets your attention off your own problems.

Me: I think that's a really false evaluation of what's happening in my life.

Mark: But you said everybody has pain. I believe that.

Me: I haven't had very much pain in my life recently. I've been very fortunate recently.

Mark: Well, I'm not going to say that that's a bad thing.

Me: Well, thank you! [laughs]

Mark: Actually, I don't really take this stuff personally. I'm basically dealing with this stuff - you're looking at it from the outside, as somebody who's always looking for the worst.

Me: I'm not always looking for the worst. You're mistaken about that.

Mark: I haven't seen you say anything good about it to any of these people. You're only looking for the worst. I bet when you guys sit there and do your chat rooms, you don't sit there and say good things about Scientology.

Me: I happen to think that the good things about Scientology are very few and far between, and I happen to think that they primarily are experienced by people like yourself who have been in Scientology for quite a long time. I think those things are availble to people in other ways and at much cheaper cost. Now that's not really my business. If you're happy with Scientology, that's cool. The thing is, while Scientology is providing some benefits for you - maybe even huge benefits for you - it's also hurting people. And I want it to stop doing that. I want it to stop breaking the law, and locking people up, per policy.

Mark: That just doesn't wash.

Me: Why?

Mark: Because there are much bigger problems in the world.

Me: What makes you think I'm not doing anything about those?

Mark: Because you're here instead of there.

Me: That doesn't mean I'm not doing anything about those, it means this is what I'm doing this afternoon.

Mark: You know, the problems in this city alone - there's thousands of people in this city who have to sleep on the street.

[A passerby asks whether I'm for Scientology or against them? I say, I'm protesting their illegal activities, and he says, "YES!"]

Me: Now why do people react like that?

Mark: You're in a certain neighborhood ...

Me: Oh, he's a degraded being, is he? Why is Scientology located in this neighborhood, if it's got so many downstat beings?

Mark: I wish they'd move this thing.

Me: Hey, do you know why they had to move to smaller quarters on Sutter Street?

Mark: I have no idea.

Me: How long have you been in the SF org?

Mark: [vague] Oh ... I don't ...

Me: Oh, you don't go to this org? Where do you usually go?

Mark: I think I'll just keep that to myself, and I'll tell you why - the maliciousness of those chat groups that you guys do, I don't like to get myself injected into this malicious chit-chat that you guys do.

Me: I think you're generalizing, and I don't think that anything I've said has been malicious.

Mark: Well, I don't necessarily know about you ... Do you know there are families out here that have to live in a car? If you wanted to help something, you could help that.

Me: So I should go focus on other things and not focus on the bad things Scientology is doing?

Mark: Every single group has its detractors, and usually there may be some element of truth to the things that some of these people say, but what's important is the overall contribution. You won't realize our contribution so that you can justify what you're doing. The fact of it is, we have stats that prove what we do to get people off drugs, but you won't look at those.

Me: If you would provide them to me, I'd be happy to look at them. Could you provide them to me?

Mark: I'm not part of Narconon, so I don't have them.

Me: Do you know where I could get them? Cause I haven't found them on the web.

Mark: Actually, Narconon has basically proven itself. It's got government funding. It must have proven something to them.

Me: Not necessarily. There was a judge who recently ruled that it was okay to say that Narconon hasn't proven to have gotten a single person off drugs, because they haven't proven that.

Mark: Who has proven anything like that? If we can't, nobody can. You see, anything I say about it, you minimize.

Me: That's because it doesn't help me to stop what Scientology's doing wrong, which is what I'm concerned about.

Mark: Every person, every organization has some good and some bad. The way you judge an organization is by the overall preponderance of what they do. You obviously are not a saint, and neither am I. I should be basically dealt with based on the preponderance of what I do in life.

[... and shortly after this we took our break, and after we came back, Mark attached himself to Taniwha.]

-- Kristi Wachter the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me)

I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop it. See http://www.scientology-lies.com for more. Can you say "Xenu?" ... I knew that you could.


The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank