Notorious German Human Rights Violator loses Task Force

“Hamburg to Close Down Scientology Task Force

The city of Hamburg said this week it would suspend the work of its 17-year-old Scientology task force …. Leader Ursula Caberta has successfully defended herself in numerous cases brought by Scientologists. However, the city says it will continue to monitor the group.” (SPIEGEL of today)

Successfully? Caberta lost most of her cases in Germany and abroad and brought about several millions worth of damages to the city’s legal funds. But her true claim to fame is that she brought about unprecedented discrimination for members of the Church of Scientology, destroyed families, ridiculed the legal system by getting away with bribes and brought about diplomatic tensions between Germany and the US. I think that putting her in a corner now to collect dust until she reaches pension age is still too good for her.

– L

66 Comments

  1. […] Scientology Myths Forum Tags: Force, German, Human, loses, Notorious, Rights, Task, Violator […]

  2. I must wonder- this article seems to imply that ms. Caberta opposes SCIENTOLOGY. If that is the case, why would she support the rights of independent scientologists to practice their beliefs without observation nor interference?

  3. There is now much opposition against the closing of the scientology task force in Hamburg from both major parties.
    The SPD has started a citizens’ initiative to prevent the closure of the scientology task force.

  4. Bigdaddy, I can tell you straight up that Scientologists take the word from other Scientologists without a hint of verification. It’s quite common amongst them. No surprise there…yet it’s funny to see it from another perspective.

  5. Wait, you’re claiming she’s a human rights violator??…How laughable is that. Scientology destroys how many families and you try to pin this on her…now that’s comedy!

  6. “Comment by Pat on August 24, 2010 2:13 pm”

    I think you completely missed BD’s point there.

  7. Besides that, why the glaring double standard? Do you also hold yourself and louanne accountable for what you two may say, or do your accusations apply only to those who disagree with you? Or have you even read your previous posts?

  8. But am I incorrect? Pointing out an observed pattern is not an attack.

  9. Shock of shocks, BD. Ad hominem from you? Wow. Spin spin spin :D

  10. It’s deeper than that, too!
    Do you see how pat seemed to automatically accept and believe what she was told, without question or verifiable data?
    Nothing personal, pat, it just seems to be a pattern.

  11. Well, this site has to do with Scientology MYTHS – “What is fact, what is fiction?”
    It’s like a game that goes like this:
    Louanne posts something, the commenters try to determine whether it is fact or fiction. Pat plays the role the game master. Whenever the game gets boring, because all myths posted by Louanne have already have been debunked, he chimes in and posts some easy ones to keep us all happy.

  12. What the fuck is wrong with you louanne/pat? You ever wonder why so few scientologists post here? It’s because this site clearly has nothing to do with Scientology.

  13. You certainly are a suspicious lot, aren’t you?

  14. lol. Busted

    Pat

  15. While I missed you :), my comment was directed towards Vienna.

  16. “Comment by Bigdaddy on August 27, 2010 6:41 pm
    “Why did you delete my post, Louanne?”
    Lol, that happens here, Vienna :)
    It’s pretty random, you get used to it.”

    Dude, I apologize that I don’t have all too much time to hang out here a lot. But that does not mean that you should start talking to yourself.

    – L

  17. “Why did you delete my post, Louanne?”

    Lol, that happens here, Vienna :)
    It’s pretty random, you get used to it.

  18. Why did you delete my post, louanne??

  19. That’s actually quite touching, and really gives a great perspective. I wonder how many of the anti-Ursula crowd had gone through all the effort to actually TALK to the woman and find out for themselves?

  20. Since this blog only deals in opinions and no facts, i will also post an opinion about Ursula Caberta:
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/e48b667614a842fd

  21. So, pat, we produce docs on your claims, is that how it works? Why can’t you verify your own claims, again?

  22. Docs. Not spin. C’mon. Do better than that. DOCS not just say “lies”.

    No more statements without them.

    Pat

  23. Oh wait, that analogy wasn’t good enough.
    Let me make a better one:

    Claim: The LA Lakers lost most of their season 2008-2009 NBA matches and also the moon consists of cheese, Baghdad is the capitol of France and Mother Theresa was a notorious human rights violator.

    Proof:
    On november 14th 2008 the lakers lost against the Detroit Pistons 95-106

    qed

  24. Pat, do you apply the same kind of “logic” also to problems that are unrelated to Scientology?

    Let me make a test:
    Claim: The LA Lakers lost most of their season 2008-2009 NBA matches.
    Proof:
    On november 14th 2008 they lost against the Detroit Pistons 95-106

    So, is this proof correct?

  25. I must point out that I did not provide alternative proof, because I did not make the claim. Are you saying that louanne does not have to prove her claim to be correct, but I must shoulder the burden of proving it wrong, when I merely ask that she back up her claims? Why is this so complicated?

  26. Pat,
    This is a departure from your previous positions, where you have not placed great stock in the court data, etc, that has been provided from points contrary to your own. Why is it different in this case, that you suddenly trust court data and quotes to a greater degree?
    But, my question remains- what do you see on the RFW website that I seem to have missed? I don’t see any court data or records of win/loss ration- I see only unverified claims on the links that you or Grahame have provided. I’m not saying it’s false, or that I disagree, only asking why you believe what’s on RFW without being able to verify their claims?
    Seriously, I’m asking the question- what did I miss on RFW’s website that you consider to be irrefutable proof?
     

  27. BD, absolutely what is true is what one has personally observed to be true. I look at the court data and see that it’s true. I look at the docs and see that it’s true. Along comes Anon and says “lies” with no docs to show how that is so, so it’s just posturing and spin and an attempt to negate a post without backing it up. When asked for docs asserts that the docs already present are “biased”, again without presenting any alternative docs that show the originals are incorrect or not to be believed. Just more opinion. Therefore, and until I see otherwise, it’s all critic-spin with no substance. Posturing. I won’t stop asking for proof that docs Louanne posts are “biased” until I have the proof that these are falsified in some way. Until then, they are the facts. You cannot tell me that these “lies” comments etc aren’t confirmation bias.

    Pat

  28. Louanne, on a sincere note, I truly believe that you believe that you’re doing what’s right. I also truly believe that the headley’s, hall and the “anons” also believe that they are doing what’s right. The world is not black and white, and there are very few “movie villains” who do things solely to be evil. Generally, people fight for what they believe, a trait that you and the other pro-posters, and I, and the anons, all share.
    I don’t believe you to be ignorant, nor stupid, and would believe that you already know this. But it will continue until, and if, a common agreement is reached. Until that point, people on both sides will continue to fight for what they believe. From your perspective, the critics ruin lives. From their perspective, Scientology ruins lives. But, I suppose that what is true is what one has observed to be true, is it not?

  29. Louanne,
    A good chunk of s.h.’s post I’d made up of pat quotes, just to put that in perspective.
    I wonder, what do you plan to do to “make good” on your overts?

  30. “Comment by Schwein haben on August 22, 2010 11:37 am”

    tl;dr. Dude, you got too much time on your hands.

    – L

  31. ” Comment by Anon on August 21, 2010 11:50 pm
    You have big overts against Ursula Caberta, Mark Rathbun, Steve Hall and Anonymous.”

    I confess, I have a big overt of omission against Ursula Caberta, Mark Rathbun, Steve Hall and Anonymous: I did not prevent them from destroying people’s lives. That’s quite hard on me and I will make good now.

    – L

  32. Pat: I didn’t change the subject. Just pointed out that making spending hours here grumbling about posts when you could be out helping change conditions in society.

    Me: You did, you changed the subject attempting to deflect criticism by implying that one should not criticize in an imperfect world. Is that your position? Let’s assume you’re right- let’s pretend like whoever you were talking about does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING towards bettering society (quite an assumption!)- does that mean that they don’t have the right to criticize? More to the point, does that devalue their points?

    Pat: I gave you the web site that has the court data you claim Louanne didn’t provide. You respond that it’s a biased link, ignoring the court data referred to.

    Me: It is biased- is that not true? But, I really don’t see too many hard facts on that site, much less court records.

    Pat: Therefore, all this posturing is just natter on your part. Spin it as “bias” when that’s exactly what you do every time you post about her post. You’re biased and have the gall to call any post as such. The overt doth speak loudly in accusation. Where does this idea come from that documentation from a Scientology source isn’t valid? Spin.

    Me: I think that was well covered. I think you would also agree that you are certainly biased. But, it’s rare to see this site, or RFW or FM for that matter, provide actual, independent verifiable sources. I hate to bring it up again, but even on this site, you claimed to have proof of criminon’s success, but never provided it.

    Pat: Truth is the exact time, place, form and event. Those are in the link on Grahame’s site. Date, Court that overturned and admonished her, State Department data, etc, the form it took and the events.

    Me: I don’t see it there. regardless, I’m aware of the state department piece, but don’t see any specific names listed- where do they mention Caberta?

    Pat: Don’t like it? Tough. At this point, you have no credibility. You attack the posts but have never been able to back it with any actual cites. Spin. Perhaps Louanne will post her “only one rule” again to refresh your memory. All the natter on other sites about this forum isn’t going to change the fact that she has bent over backwards trying to give you non-Scientology documents for her posts (I personally don’t know why since ours are perfectly valid with documentation to back it).

    Me: Where is your perfectly valid documentation? And I see plenty of backing from the critics as I browse this site- it’s your claims that are never, in any case that I can find, verified, nor followed through.

    Pat: Bottom line, you harp and criticize and do nothing for the world.

    Me: How do you know?

    Pat: If you don’t have the document that shows her data is wrong then STFU.

    Me: Is that how it works? Someone makes a claim, and it’s up to someone else to back it up? Okay, we can do it your way. Let’s see… ‘Scientology breaks up families”. Now it’s your job to prove me wrong, rather than my job to prove it correct, right?

  33. “This whole blog is a NATTER blog. Face it.”

    It’s mostly an attack site, just like most other scientology sites, to include RFW and freedom mag. Look at how much of this site (and ALL of freedom rag and almost ALL of RFW) is spent on attacking enemies. What does that tell you?

  34. Pat, not to be too personal, but are all scientologists like you?

  35. Pat, and I can only close with this one thought- why do you think that the city continues to support Caberta , and continues to support her work in regards to scientology?

  36. Okay, I have a few minutes to tell you the difference between “fact” and “opinion”.
    Take the claim that “she brought about unprecedented discrimination for members” That is clearly an opinion, and any source that makes that claim is declaring an opinion.
    Saying that she has “lost most of court cases” can be several different things. It may be hyperbole, exaggeration, a lie or truth. However, Louanne makes the claim based on unconfirmed data from RFW. That’s my point there- Louanne makes the claim, as fact, based on what she read on the other site, but accepts that claim without validation. Me, I’m not so trusting of “the internet”.
    You also make the libelous claim that she accepted bribes, when she was never convicted of such a thing- only an improper loan. Is that wrong? Most likely, but spinnnning it in such a way is rather tasteless. Similar is the assumption that the city’s lawsuits were a failure that should be traced to her. I think that the city felt that they were successful in helping hundreds escape the group- the money is less of a concern to them.
    Moving on- do you believe that RFW is without bias? And yes, I am biased, as are you, as is Louanne as is anyone posting to an OPINION SITE- that’s kind of to be assumed, isn’t it? My only point, which you have either ignored or missed, is that you tend to trust biased sites themselves, without validating the data. Proof is in the pudding, regarding the number of lawsuits- you and Louanne make the claim that the city “lost” most of their court cases… why do you want US to find the hard data for you? Are you saying you can’t find or provide any data to back up your repeated claim? What, then, do you have to go on, the mere word of a website that themselves does not offer or have that data?
    Now, Pat- I know that you don’t really have a history of following through with debates, rather than ‘cut and run’, but this may be a new you. In which case, hello! But if one makes a claim, one is obligated to have some sort of factual basis for it. You, however, tend to run on emotion rather than fact, which does not seem to be the greatest basis for such a conversation.
    Just my opinion.

  37. Pat, you changed the subject at August 21, 2010 7:13 am. That’s what I was referring to.

    Who are you to judge what others do for the world? Are you always that judgmental of complete strangers?

    Anywho, I don’t merely accept links that make a claim, as do you, I tend to believe unbiased sites. Can you tell the difference between merely believing that the evidence exists, and actually referencing the source documents?

    I’ll post more later, after bettering society, but there is much to say about your angry post. In the meantime, I remind you of our narconon discussion, where it was only the “con” side that presented any sort of evidence for our claim. You did not provide a single shred of validation to your initial claim. Did we treat you as rudely as you did us? No. why are you so angry, and leave us to treat you better than you do us

  38. This whole blog is a NATTER blog. Face it.
    You have big overts against Ursula Caberta, Mark Rathbun, Steve Hall and Anonymous. That’s why you’re nattering along and accusing THEM of the crimes that YOU yourself commit, like destroying families, wasting millions on lawsuits and discriminating against (non COS)-Scientologist.
    This blog shows it.
    The overt doth speak loudly in accusation!

  39. I didn’t change the subject. Just pointed out that making spending hours here grumbling about posts when you could be out helping change conditions in society.

    I gave you the web site that has the court data you claim Louanne didn’t provide. You respond that it’s a biased link, ignoring the court data referred to.

    Therefore, all this posturing is just natter on your part. Spin it as “bias” when that’s exactly what you do every time you post about her post. You’re biased and have the gall to call any post as such. The overt doth speak loudly in accusation. Where does this idea come from that documentation from a Scientology source isn’t valid? Spin.

    Truth is the exact time, place, form and event. Those are in the link on Grahame’s site. Date, Court that overturned and admonished her, State Department data, etc, the form it took and the events.

    Don’t like it? Tough. At this point, you have no credibility. You attack the posts but have never been able to back it with any actual cites. Spin. Perhaps Louanne will post her “only one rule” again to refresh your memory. All the natter on other sites about this forum isn’t going to change the fact that she has bent over backwards trying to give you non-Scientology documents for her posts (I personally don’t know why since ours are perfectly valid with documentation to back it).

    Bottom line, you harp and criticize and do nothing for the world.

    If you don’t have the document that shows her data is wrong then STFU.

    Pat

  40. As she always resorts to when she runs out of insults or opinions :) but facts? no!

  41. Truth is the EXACT consideration. It is the exact time, place form and event.
    No truth is to be found in your comment about Ursula Caberta, louanne. It is NATTER.

  42. They won’t have it, big, and won’t go through the effort to find it, either. Look at the history in this thread alone. Pat makes a very strong assertion, and seems to believe it to be fact, but can only post to a biased and angry site that focuses ONLY on attacking others. There is no redeeming value to that site- it is used only to attack others.
    And, there, the site makes the claim that Caberta has lost most of her court cases, and Pat repeats it as fact- solely because she was told it to be true. No question, no need to verify, strictly because someone told her (or him? I can’t tell by the name alone).
    But a google search (pat site:scientologymyths.wordpress.com) shows that this is a reliable pattern.
    So, big, don’t hold your breath asking these folks for facts!

  43. Maybe we can bring it back into the actual topic, I don’t think that Hamburg measured success of the task force in dollars and cents- that’s not as important to everyone, as it is to scientology.
    If that were the case, the the millions of dollars spent by scientology on unsuccessful lawsuits and other court cases would be seen as a failure, would it? These are funds spent on lawsuits that are directly from the individual scientologists- they are spending scientologist money on unsuccessful lawsuits- many in Germany. Are those failures?
    But, once again, Hamburg did not measure the success of the task force in mere “money”- they consider, mostly, the “hundreds” of people that wanted to leave scientology and were able to do so with the help of the group. They really didn’t care about money, it was the self-described victims that they aimed to help.
    I still can’t find a list of the court cases championed by the task force, so I can’t judge win/loss ratios. I only see the news articles describing the victories in “dozens” of court cases. Do you have any sort of record of the actual court case results?

  44. related:
    straw man (n): “A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position”
    That being recognized and said, what do you think about the actual concepts? But, it’s your blog, lou- if you want to change the subject, or ignore that many other open posts, feel free.

  45. Specifically,
    Pat changed the subject after making a claim that she was able to back up. Now, I assume she’s gone again- this is just like when she made claims about narconon. Louanne has kept up the diversion by allowing herself to also be diverted to an entirely different subject.
    And it’s one that doesn’t matter- anon, or any of us, could be saints and devote our lives to helping others- and maybe we have, none of us know. But it doesn’t matter, as it’s entirely unrelated to the subject at hand. Louanne- would you say that one does NOT have the right to criticize a concept, unless they are entirely “perfect”?

  46. Digression (n): A departure from the subject, course, or idea at hand; an exploration of a different or unrelated concern

    You’re off your own subject, Louanne, you and Pat both. Why can’t you stick to this subject?

  47. Nice spin, dude. So what is your contribution to society?

    – L

  48. Then tell Louanne to stop posting all this natter about Ursula Caberta, Mark Rathbun and Anonymous and join the red cross or unicef instead, so that you can help make the world a better place.

  49. spin: call rebuttal “bias”

  50. Word Origin & History

    natter
    “grumble, fret,” 1829, northern England dialect variant of gnatter “to chatter, grumble,” earlier (18c.) “to nibble away,” probably of echoic origin.

    I find it interesting that in less than 200 years a word can be altered so much in meaning. I like restoring original meanings.

    Right now in the world, we are in danger of losing human rights, eating non-drugged food, drug companies are getting away with murder. So just continue to spend your life here nattering.

    Pat

  51. Oops, that was”good on ya”, not hood

  52. Regardless, Caberta is not a prosecutor, nor does she have the sole ability to initiate legal action. In reality, if is the government that opposes your group, not her alone

  53. That was my point to pat, hood on ya anon. This is the criminon discussion all over again.
    Assuming you are not related to that hate-site, my point does not reflect on you, just the source of your data, and should not be taken personally. But, surely you would agree that the site is in no way unbiased?

  54. “1) Caberta lost most of her cases in Germany and abroad”

    “most” means more than 50 %.
    In order to prove that Caberta lost most of her cases in Germany and abroad, you would have to provide us a list of all cases of Caberta and then count the number of cases she lost and the cases she won. If the cases she lost is indeed greater than the cases she won, then you are right. But there is no such list on the site you linked to.

    If you don’t have such a list, then you shouldn’t make such a statement.

  55. @ Comment by Bigdaddy on August 19, 2010 11:00 pm

    “Pat,
    In order to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, you would need to objectively demonstrate your own claims as well, unless you consider them to be solely opinions?
    Just posting a link to a stalker hate-site doesn’t cut it.”

    The references to the court cases are clearly listed on that link. It looks to me like you’re denigrating the site where the post was made as a reason to ad hominem me. Did you even look at those court cases?

    Pat

  56. I actually wouldn’t call louanne’s comments lies as much ad “opinions pretending to be fact”. As opinions, they are unverifiable. However, as she is still employed, it would seem that that government would disagree with louanne on that one.

  57. Pat,
    In order to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, you would need to objectively demonstrate your own claims as well, unless you consider them to be solely opinions?
    Just posting a link to a stalker hate-site doesn’t cut it.

  58. @Comment by Anon on August 19, 2010 9:11 am

    “Lies”

    Nuh-uh. Truth

    You actually have to document with what you believe to be the correct data statistically in order to call what she says is false. Otherwise, you just look stupid. Where are your facts that makes what Louanne says false?

    1) Caberta lost most of her cases in Germany and abroad
    2) These losses add up to several millions cost to the city.
    3) She caused unprecedented discrimination to the Church of Scientology, destroyed families, ridiculed the legal system (specifically I believe this refers to the fact that the German High Court kept having to cancel her continued attacks as a violation of Germany’s Constitution), and brought about tensions between Germany and the US (specifically referring to the annual statement by the US that Germany has continued to deny religious freedoms, and not just to Scientology, and most of this comes from Caberta’s actions against the Church of Scientology in Germany)

    http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religious-extremists/ursula-caberta/

    Pat

  59. “Caberta lost most of her cases in Germany and abroad and brought about several millions worth of damages to the city’s legal funds. But her true claim to fame is that she brought about unprecedented discrimination for members of the Church of Scientology, destroyed families, ridiculed the legal system by getting away with bribes and brought about diplomatic tensions between Germany and the US.”

    Lies.

  60. I’m tracking that he said it in April. Verbiage, sure, no in response- but it really doesn’t change the facts of his intent. You may be thinking of former city mayor Ole von Beust, who also opposed scientology.

  61. I may note that he failed utterly with that. Blinded by Caberta fanaticism.

    – L

  62. “In response, the Hamburg interior minister has called for a nationwide ban on scientology.”

    Lie. That was the former interior minister, years ago. No “in response”.

    Get your facts straight, dude.

    – L

  63. That’s a nice guess, but I’m more partial to facts and data, when it’s available.

    Hamburg Interior Ministry spokesman Thomas Butter said for the record that the closure was for financial reasons- they’re transferring Caberta to the Interior Ministry, where she will still be assigned to monitoring scientology.

    The only thing that will change is the office that counsels “victims of scientology”, which will now be hadled by the local branch of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency. In response, the Hamburg interior minister has called for a nationwide ban on scientology.

    But seeking “illegal activity” was not the goal of the task force- but I’m assuming you know that, as you’ve surely researched this issue, and even visited the task force’s website- it was to monitor the group and to assist victims of scientology, said to be in the “hundreds”. At each, the task force will continue to do in a different capacity.

  64. They canceled the task force because, after 17 years and god knows how much time and money, they found nothing illegal in any activity the Church of Scientology was involved in.

    That is my guess.

  65. Why dp you believe they canceled the task force?

  66. […] August 17, 2010 at 11:07 pm (Uncategorized) "Hamburg to Close Down Scientology Task Force The city of Hamburg said this week it would suspend the work of its 17-year-old Scientology task force …. Leader Ursula Caberta has successfully defended herself in numerous cases brought by Scientologists. However, the city says it will continue to monitor the group." (SPIEGEL of today) Successfully? Caberta lost most of her cases in Germany and abroad and brought about several millions worth of da … Read More […]


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos