Why Crime doesn’t pay off

A New Zealand newspaper  called “Stuff” reports today that “New Zealand bans UK couple over Scientology case”.  As the story goes, Robin Scott, 62, and his wife Adrienne, 61, were refused residence in New Zealand based on the fact that they did not let the authorities know about their criminal past. So far, so normal. BUT, it wouldn’t appear on Scientology Myths if not one of the uglier “Myth” would be connected to one of the two, Robin Scott.

As “Stuff” says:

“Mr Scott had served a month in a Danish prison before being deported in 1984. He later agreed he faced a criminal charge but said it was essentially a civil dispute over “industrial espionage”. He had waited outside a Scientology property in Copenhagen while two accomplices wearing the insignia of senior church officials gained entry and obtained teaching materials to use in a business he had set up for students wanting to study Scientology from outside the organization.”

A squirrel. One of those who stole materials that are still circulating as “actual Scientology materials” (most of them are not, but some kind of “interpretation” or “improvement”). Well, it didn’t last long until he showed his true colors. “Stuff” continues:

“In 1996 he was sentenced to four years’ jail, and in 1998 he was sentenced to another two years and six months on the cannabis charges. Mrs Scott was sentenced to 15 months, and later 240 hours’ community work, on the charges she faced but she was accepted for registration as a teacher in New Zealand.”

It’s never too late to get one’s life in order. Robin, start with this.

– L

Advertisements

59 Comments

  1. As a newbie in the religion, I have been trying to figure out who to believe in this ongoing war between Scientology and the media, and I was hoping for some help from the pro-Scientology side with a couple questions.

    I just read the Paul Haggis/New Yorker article. First, I believe many of the ex-Scientologists are making things up just to get back at the church. That seems obvious. But also, I couldn’t believe these things about Hubbard’s war record! How did he receive two medals which did not even exist at the time? How did an officer confirm this, but that officer never existed?!? Something seems fishy.

    As for Haggis, he seemed like a real questionable person himself. I wouldn’t feel too strongly about the guy’s opinion one way or the other. As a church, however, posting letters from his sister to help bash his character? I wouldn’t want to be a part of a religion that uses such classless tactics to slander a person. If there is a good explanation, I’d like to hear it!

    • First you say you’re new to the religion, then you say you don’t want to be part of it, making this whole post look like a statement to introduce negative comments about Scientology and LRH. Technically, you just publicly disavowed Scientology and have committed a high crime (suppressive act). Please go see your ethics officer at whatever org or mission you were/are involved with. This can be handled there.

      Pat

      • Yeah, Jeff, this is about the answer you could have expected. Thinking with a critical mind? High crime.

      • This is true:

        To anyone who is NOT a scientologist, this comment sounds terrifying:

        “Technically, you just publicly disavowed Scientology and have committed a high crime (suppressive act). Please go see your ethics officer at whatever org or mission you were/are involved with. This can be handled there.”

        Now, bear in mind that Hubbard once said, “You want to know what happens when you clear everybody in that neighbourhood, the only thing that [Scientology] center can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you’ve done all this, you are the government…”
        -L. Ron Hubbard, taped lecture 9 January 1962, “Future Org Trends”

        So, let’s replace “scientology” in Pat’s statement with the stated inevitable goal of scientology- to “be” the government. (logic path: goal of scientology is to clear the planet. Hubbard said that if you clear even merely a neighborhood, you “are” the government there) and we come up with:

        “Technically, you just publicly disavowed -The Government- and have committed a high crime (suppressive act). Please go see your ethics officer at whatever political center you were/are involved with. This can be handled there.”

        Does this sound like an ideal world?

      • Pat– I did not say I was a Scientologist, I am new to learning about the religion. I had a friend join the church and he is very supportive of it. After reading some things, these are my questions that might critical of Scientology. Since I don’t see him much, I thought I’d try for answers from an independent source. Do you have any explanations for my questions because I just don’t get it. Thank you.

      • Pat–I apologize for the wording, it was clearly incorrect. I am not ‘in’ the church, but I am into learning about it.

        So how about discussing the other issues? Or is that not allowed here? I’d really just like a common understanding.

      • Alright. I accept that you are not a Scientologist. I’m not going to respond to your comments, because of they are making statements.

        Pat

      • Thank you Pat, I certainly don’t want to cause anyone trouble. After thinking more, I don’t care about Hubbard’s war record… that is a battle of he said/she said that will never end.

        To Louanne though, I just don’t understand why, when the Church had the opportunity to take the high road regarding Paul Haggis, they instead chose to slander him. What kind of example does that set? I chose to ask here because Louanne does seem to be reasonable, and the title of the forum even says “There are no stupid questions.” Thank you for your time.

      • In my opinion Haggis and the New Yorker are an excellent example to show the bias and incompetence of such “experts.” Haggis has not been a Scientologist for somewhat like 30 years and suddenly comes out of the box? That’s fishy and I am sure there is a good story underlying that.

        – L

      • He stopped being a Scientologist because he didn’t take any coursework? As a Christian, if I don’t go to church I still maintain my set of beliefs. It sounds like he maintained his as well, not to mention donating financially to Scientology over the years. I don’t doubt that Paul Haggis has more than his share of personal issues, but publishing a letter from his sister is a low blow. Whether it’s right or wrong, as a professional, worldwide organization you should really consider how an unbiased person will perceive this, and it is not in a favorable light.

      • Jeff,

        To understand this you’d have to read the code of a Scientologist. He left Scientology. It wasn’t a matter of not doing a course or getting counseling. 30 years is a long time to be out of the Church then come back and say “I’m leaving”. Think about it and the coincidence of the New Yorker piece.

        Code of a Scientologist
        http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-scientology-creeds-and-codes/the-code-of-a-scientologist.html

        Pat

      • I do not wish to continue arguing about Paul Haggis’ status or discredit anything else you might have to say. My main point to Louanne was simply that bashing someone in the way this site did, whether true or not, does not leave a good impression of Scientology on any outsiders who may or may not have been interested in joining the religion. Thank you and good luck.

    • Jeff, in order to slander it would have to be false. In this case, it isn’t. Haggis was last on lines over 30 years ago, so how come he suddenly shows up in an article of the New Yorker as having JUST LEFT Scientology? What’s the agenda there?

      Exposing the lie is giving the truth. Put yourself in that position for just a minute. Would you want the lies exposed?

      From Advanced Procedures and Axioms (axiom is a self-evident truth)

      “Axiom 38

      1. Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration.

      2. Mechanical definition: Stupidity is the unknownness of time, place, form and event.

      1. Truth is the exact consideration.

      2. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.

      Thus we see that failure to discover truth brings about stupidity.

      Thus we see that the discovery of truth would bring about an as-isness by actual experiment.

      Thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place, form or event.

      Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask a truth.

      Lying is an alteration of time, place, event or form.

      Lying becomes alter-isness, becomes stupidity.

      ……….

      Anything which persists must avoid as-isness. Thus, anything, to persist, must contain a lie.”

      Pat

      • Pat–From reading previous posts, I now realize that it a Scientologist will never lose an argument whether they are right or wrong. I am certainly no match compared to others who have tried. Posting a Scientology axiom is a little insulting because a) I am not a Scientologist, b) as-isness is not a word, and c) we all know the difference between truth and lies without throwing technical jargon into it.

        From my last post to Louanne, yes I believe a man can still be part of a religion even if he hasn’t been ‘on-lines’ for 30 years. His agenda for leaving now was stated in the article: Scientology supported the proposition to ban gay marriage, and he has 2 gay daughters. It’s that simple. Is there a Scientology axiom that tells you how to be inexplicably rude to newcomers?

      • Jeff,

        The Church of Scientology did not support the gay ban. That’s a rumor started because a Scientologist, not the Church, evidently said he was against gay marriage.

        Pat

      • Jeff,

        I apologize for not giving you a definition

        as-is means that the thing disappears when it is fully confronted, such as a rumor such as the gay marriage ban thing. You would need to look at this as “did the Church do this? When? Where? What was said exactly? Who said it?” That means that if you are really going to research Scientology you need to examine these statements and see for yourself if it’s true.

        Pat

  2. “do his crimes untwisted to scientology have anything at all to do with his status as an independent scientologist?”

    untwisted to scientology? He’s not an “independant scientologist”. There’s no such thing. If one has disavowed the church and is practicing and altering Scientology outside of the licenses to practice then the name is “Squirrel”. Since he’s not a Scientologist and wasn’t when he committed his crimes, the only reason I see that this would be brought up at all, is to be snide and make anti-Scientology rhetoric.

    Same with bringing up the critics’ anti-Scientology rhetoric about the kool-aid.

    When you do that you are violating the only rule this blog has, by saying things like above.

    Pat

    • No, Pat, “Squirrel” is the insult leveraged against those that don’t acknowledge the right of others to self-identify with a particular religion. I really don’t care if you call yourself the Pope of Wicca, I celebrate religious freedoms, even if I don’t personally agree with the beliefs.

      The question, the one that you still haven’t answered, is what is the relation of those crimes to this posting? What’s more, does his crimes have any relation whatsoever to his status of what you call a “squirrel”?

      I remind you, Pat, that you’re the only one that keeps bringing up the kool-aid. I pointed out the irony of your choice of words in passing, you’ve chosen to continue discussing it. Like I said, if I offended you by pointing out that fact, I apologize for it, but I don’t understand why you keep pulling in more conflict when you don’t have to.

      With all due respect, this is louanne’s blog, not yours. I’ll defer to her, whether she thinks I’m breaking her rules or not.

      • Sorry, not “leveraged against”- “leveraged by”

      • “The question, the one that you still haven’t answered, is what is the relation of those crimes to this posting? What’s more, does his crimes have any relation whatsoever to his status of what you call a “squirrel”?”

        It’s real simple. Drum roll….. He was banned due to all of his crimes. That’s what Louanne posted. The post here was posted because parts of it were relevant to Scientology.

        Pat

      • “No, Pat, “Squirrel” is the insult leveraged against those that don’t acknowledge the right of others to self-identify with a particular religion. I really don’t care if you call yourself the Pope of Wicca, I celebrate religious freedoms, even if I don’t personally agree with the beliefs.”

        Au contraire, pepe, oh wait, that would be Rocky. It’s not a matter of religious freedom. It’s a matter of unlicensed use of Trademark (Scientology) and copyrighted material. These “squirrels” are breaking the law. Stop trying to make this about religious freedom. It isn’t.

        Pat

      • “It’s real simple. Drum roll….. He was banned due to all of his crimes. That’s what Louanne posted. The post here was posted because parts of it were relevant to Scientology. ”

        So you’re saying that the parts about his “other” crimes are indeed unrelated to scientology?

        “Au contraire, pepe, oh wait, that would be Rocky. It’s not a matter of religious freedom. It’s a matter of unlicensed use of Trademark (Scientology) and copyrighted material. These “squirrels” are breaking the law. Stop trying to make this about religious freedom. It isn’t.”

        Absolutely it is- you seem to be trying to make it about business. If they’re breaking the law- go ahead and report ’em. See if it sticks. But I think you’ll find that it won’t, because the courts uphold their rights to belief. So, yes, I support their religious freedoms.
        Did you know that many translations of the Christian Bible are copyrighted? And yet, people use that and interpret it according to their beliefs. How is that not wrong, in your view? Or is it?

      • Excuse me, Jeff

        “As a newbie in the religion, I have been trying to figure out who to believe in”

        In = part of, inside of

        Pat

      • So you’re saying that the parts about his “other” crimes are indeed unrelated to scientology?

        No, BDish-like person, I didn’t. The article says that. The one that Louanne quoted.

        Pat

      • In all that noise please don’t forget one key issue: Scientology works and it is powerful stuff. Most squirrels failed in standard application of the most basic technology and now try to do it outside the Church, deliberately omitting qualification requirements. In the hands of such people Scientology might be used in a harmful way which is the main reason why anti-squirrel policy was written. What the “Independents” call “Scientology” strikes me more like “suicide” or attempted manslaughter. It is so messed up and so not Scientology anymore that I truly fear for the well-being of the “clients”. Auditing without PC folders and with rusty E-meters is suppressive in the fullest sense of the word. If they truly wanted to help anyone they would apply basic Scientology like Assists and not mess up people.

        – L

      • “See if it sticks. But I think you’ll find that it won’t, because the courts uphold their rights to belief. ”

        It already has, with Robin.

        Scientology is not a belief-based system. It’s a new religion and the author of those scriptures and Trademarks copyrighted his writings. He turned those over to the Religious Technology Center prior to his death. The bible is thousands of years old pre-copyright. If someone annotates it or writes opinions then they have a right to copyright the text. That doesn’t deny anyone the right to believe. What I get from you, is that it’s ok to steal trademarks and copyrighted religious scriptures because they want to be free to believe. That is so non-sequiter. These squirrels are squirrels because they are using altered scriptures and calling it Scientology. It isn’t.

        Pat

  3. Many articles written by the media on this really confuse the reader into believing he committed a crime “under the instruction of” scientology as oppose to the reality being

    1. him not informing people of his criminal history
    2. him taking illegal drugs
    3. him not clearing the legal barriers before starting his business
    They do this mainy by confusing the titles of the story or the way the facts are presented.
    Man the media is good at confusing the facts!

    • So true, and what our “friend” is trying to do as well. As I said, it was added inapplicable. Irrelevant to this blog, therefore not something I would answer.

      Same with the snide comments re: the kool-aid and ad hominem at that

      Pat

      • No, pat, I’m not. My question is very direct, and I thank Fred for being able to address it.
        The very simple question is of the items that Fred listed had anything at all to do with Scientology. That’s all. In other words, do his crimes untwisted to scientology have anything at all to do with his status as an independent scientologist?
        Moving on, there was no ad him, not by any definition. I’m not even sure how the kool-aid comment is still coming up. I simply pointed out that the metaphor you happened to choose has almost a half-million existing references when tied to Scientology. However, it seems that offended you, and I apologize.

    • Oops, Fred, sorry, I forgot to reply to you!
      So you would say that when a scientologist commits a crime, then it reflects on the character of the person, not necessarily Scientology as a whole?

      • callforreform… and pat…
        that has NOTHING to do with what i said… i feel no need to comment on anything…

    • I think i clicked reply at the wrong place… sorry!

  4. “Links, please where this is used as a metaphor for Scientology.
    Pat”

    Seriously? Okay, but before we can discuss a concept, I also need to get fixated on a small issue. Please provide links showing that you don’t like blue kool-aid. Please also provide links that there is such a thing as blue kool-aid.
    Seriously, Pat, are you unable to discuss big picture items without getting caught in unimportant details? And my comment about kool-aid is so incredibly minor to the conversation, that I believe you’re only trying to distract the main point.
    I have to assume that you’re not familiar with the Jonestown suicides, so the comment may be lost on you. You can find that through google, phrase “jonestown”.
    you can have half a million links by goolging “scientology” “kool-aid”
    Can you discuss the main point now?

    “Give me the specific quote where she says he committed non-scientology crimes.
    Pat”

    Pat, again with this?
    Deja vu
    Deja vu

    I assume that you didn’t read the article above:
    “In 1996 he was sentenced to four years’ jail, and in 1998 he was sentenced to another two years and six months on the cannabis charges. Mrs Scott was sentenced to 15 months, and later 240 hours’ community work, on the charges she faced but she was accepted for registration as a teacher in New Zealand.”
    Unless you can find a way that that crime is related to scientology?

    • It isn’t related to Scientology so I have no idea why you’re even asking. As for Jonestown, as I said before your bringing this up is added inapplicable.

      Pat

      • Of course Jonestown and kool-aid is not related! I agree, that’s what I’m saying! That’s why I don’t understand why you focus on the off-hand comment that referenced your own comment. What shall I do, ignore your question?

        As I said, I don’t know why you chose such a minute detail to which to devote so much of your time, but I sincerely incite you back to the big picture. Unless you want to talk about look-aid some more? I don’t,

  5. Comment by CallForReform on May 8, 2011 5:06 pm

    “And, Pat, you used kool-aid as an analogy, I pointed out that it is often also used as a metaphor for scientology. Have you not heard that before?”

    Links, please where this is used as a metaphor for Scientology.

    Pat

  6. Comment by CallForReform on May 8, 2011 5:04 pm

    “Yes, she did. Or did you not read her article? I know it’s hard to catch up, since you weren’t originally part of the conversation, but read the article- it’ll make sense.”

    Give me the specific quote where she says he committed non-scientology crimes.

    Pat

  7. by the way, to any of you mothers out there, happy mother’s day! It’s a noble calling, and something with a lifetime effect.

  8. “Did scientology have anything to do with his non-scientology related crimes? ”

    Who’s “his”?

    Pat

    • Pat, if you had read the conversation between Louanne and I, I think you’d know. But since you’d like to join in, allow me to catch you up.

      Louanne posted this article, if you will, about a man who stole material from the church and claimed it was legitimate. Maybe, maybe not, but that was relevant to the story.

      What is not clear is what his crimes, the ones that have nothing to do with scientology, have to do with the story. Thank you for trying, but only Louanne can answer that question.

      • (deliciously metaphorical) comment about “drinking the kool-aid”.

        Huh? It’s not a metaphor. It’s an analogy. Read it again.

        As for non-Scientology crimes, why are you even bringing them up? Louanne didn’t.

        Pat

      • Yes, she did. Or did you not read her article? I know it’s hard to catch up, since you weren’t originally part of the conversation, but read the article- it’ll make sense.

      • And, Pat, you used kool-aid as an analogy, I pointed out that it is often also used as a metaphor for scientology. Have you not heard that before?

  9. My brother in law was into Scientoligy he had some mighty strange ideas.

    • Could be, since Scientology is new, anyone hearing the concepts for the first time would think it’s strange. The cool thing about individuals is that they have the ability to look for themselves and see if it’s true or not. I think blue kool-aid is strange. Does that mean I should bad-mouth it without tasting it to see if it’s good?

      Pat

      • But, Pat, you mixed two different concepts! You started saying that individuals should LOOK for themselves and see if it’s true or not, then you ended with the (deliciously metaphorical) comment about “drinking the kool-aid”.

        I would say, just to put it out there, that individuals may have a multitude of criteria for determining truth for themselves, and it doesn’t always end with drinking the kool aid.

        Like crack cocaine. I don’t like it, and never had a need to try it. But I base it on my observation of those who try it subjectively, which allows me to judge it objectively.

  10. Withdraw rtc question, pending confirmation of quote. Where may I find this?

    • Any Church or mission can show it to you. Very likely in the Qual Library

      Pat

      • How much do they charge, out of curiousity?
        The nearest one to me is a few hours drive, but I may try that sometime.

      • No charge to read anything in the Qual library

        Pat

  11. Louanne, what you’re saying is a terrible generalization. Do you see that in your writings?

    Did LRH specifically create the RTC?

    May I assume that you’ve read the allegedly modified material and are in a position to validate the modification of the original?

    • Comment by Callforeform on May 5, 2011 2:52 pm

      May I assume that you’ve read the allegedly modified material and are in a position to validate the modification of the original?

      A typical ploy is to say “prove that what we have has been altered” by showing the original. It’s covert. It doesn’t matter anyway because whatever is out there in squirrel land isn’t Scientology. Anyone asserting otherwise, is only trying to justify squirrelly suppressive acts. It isn’t licensed to be used outside of the Church and Church certified auditors.

      Pat

      • It’s not a ploy, Pat. It’s a very simple question. You’ve said yourself that something’s only true if it’s true for you. How do YOU know that the “stolen” material has been altered? Are you ONLY relying on what you’ve been told or have you actually done any research whatsoever?

  12. “industrial espionage” kind of says it all.

    Louanne, what is the significance of this case? Does it in any way reflect on the independent Scientology movement as a whole?

    • I knew somebody point that out, LOL. Yes, indeed “industrial espionage”. They tried to commercialize Scientology and stole materials to set up a business delivering what they called Scientology services. Aside from the fact that their “version” of Scientology did harm people it was a complete abuse of the Scientology religion. Luckily they got caught, jailed and extradited. The “think” of so-called independents today is unfortunately the same as Scott’s in the 80s: Steal materials and try to make personal profit with them. It’s people like him that made it necessary to set up an organization like the Religious Technology Center. LRH said in 1983 about that: “My earnest advice is: Only deal with or associate with those organizations licensed by RTC and auditors in good standing with the Church; close your ears to false statements made by bad hats and thus really clear the planet.” (Ron’s Journal 38, “Today and Tomorrow: The Proof” released on New Year’s Eve 1983)

      The significance of this case today is that copies of those stolen materials, not only outdated, but also incomplete and “embellished” by the likes of Scott, are still being used by squirrels.

      – L

      • So what is the reason for listing his unrelated legal convictions?

      • I am making the point that crime does not pay off. Especially not when you attack the Church of Scientology. It haunts you for decades.

        – L

      • No, Crime doesn’t really pay. And I assume that’s a standard that you hold to scientologists and non-scientologists alike, yes?

        It sounds very ominous, the way that you say “Especially not when you attack the Church of Scientology. It haunts you for decades.” Did scientology have anything to do with his non-scientology related crimes? I’m jsut trying to figure out why you chose to highlight those in your original story.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • 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

    F

    E

    D

    More Photos