The ongoing history of gagging ex Sea Org members....

Moderator: doubleVee

<<

chuckbeatty77

User avatar

EPFer

Posts: 20

Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:44 am

Location: Pittsburgh, 412-260-1170

Post Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:48 pm

The ongoing history of gagging ex Sea Org members....

"...E. .... Beatty agrees never to create or electronically post or
publish or attempt to publish, and/or assist another to create for
publication or posting by means of newspaper story, magazine, article,
book or other similar form, any writing, or to broadcast, or to assist
another to create, write, film or video tape or audio tape, electronic
posting, any news program or movie, concerning his experiences with,
knowledge of, or information concerning, the Scientology religion, or
any of the Releasees, or any of their respective staff, former staff,
parishioners, or former parishioners. Beatty acknowledges that the
obligations set forth in this subparagraph will remain in force in
perpetuity. ..."
(email me if you want a copy of this legal agreement I signed...)


I wonder if exiting Sea Org members are today, in 2009, having to
sign, on video, like I did, similar "agreements" which are clearly
anti free speech.


If Sea Org members are signing legal clauses like this above, then
what Tommy Davis said on TV to Mr. Baca from KESQ is a stretching of
his reassuring statements about how the church respects people's right
to free speech.


This above legal agreement I signed was completely unecessary for me
to have signed, IF Scientology truly allows free speech of its ex
members.


I'll freely send copies of my agreement and Elliot Abelson's letter to
anyone.
Chuck Beatty 412-260-1170, Pittsburgh
<<

astra

Site Admin

Posts: 451

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:53 am

Post Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:16 pm

My understanding is that if they force you to sign it, ie: say you can't leave unless you sign it, that is duress and therefore not legally binding.

What is does accomplish is members who leave thinking that they are bound by such a gag order when it seems that they are not. It is just part of their overall scheme of silencing people with fear. And we are discovering that most of that fear is unfounded. Looking back, I can't put my finger on or explain exactly what I was afraid of. It was just this idea perpetuated that one should be afraid of them. Thank goodness there are so many people now who are not afraid. Each one of us who speaks out gives courage to others to tell their stories.
<<

LronIsgonE_Snap

User avatar

Suppressive Person

Posts: 1282

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:36 pm

Location: West Coast USA

Post Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:21 pm

Chuck, I am sure that you know better than I do that the CoS would love to stamp out all criticism, especially from XSO members, if only they could. Thank you for refusing to remain silent.
Enjoy your life today,
For time is fleeting.
<<

chuckbeatty77

User avatar

EPFer

Posts: 20

Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:44 am

Location: Pittsburgh, 412-260-1170

Post Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:41 pm

Gagging, any recent examples....

I know that the people who were going to help Marc in the legal case got gagged, but beyond them, if others coming out of the Sea Org are in 2008 and 2009 having to sign these legal gags, I would like to know about them.

I luckily played so innocent, with them, that they sent me a nice letter from Elliot Abelson, and a copy of my legal agreement, and I innocently then hire a lawyer, and I sent it all around the country to free legal experts, and to lawyers who have won against Scientology in the past, and they all said what you said Astra.

I think "we" who know this, should communicate this to those who come out recently, in 2008 and 2009, about their own legal agreements they have been coerced and pressured to sign, in order to complete their "routing out" process.

But, the bottom line, to expose Scientology's calm PR lies, about how they support free speech and respect people's free speech, the point simply I wanted to find out, is if it is true, as of 2008 and 2009, do recent ex Sea Org members STILL have to sign similar legal agreements? (Besides the people who got shut down who were going to be part of Marc's suit.)

Do the average ex Sea Org members STILL, like as soon as anyone catches wind of ex Sea Org members STILL having to sign these Jeannie Gavigan composed "gag" clauses in their final legal paper signing, PLEASE share the news.

I don't care if Scientology reforms, I just want to find out IF they are reforming, or if they are still lying about their "free speech" support.

I should clarify, I DO wish to see them reform. I do hope they stop their propaganda, I hope they stop their application of OSA Network Order 15, which is most recently applied by Tommy Davis on the KESQ TV interview, the full interview, I study carefully, watching Tommy's demeanor, and he gets uncomfortable at a few places, but overall he's way better than Heber used to be under similar questioning.

Scientology's PR is changing, but each little problem they create for themselves, needs to be discussed, and point by point, I hope they continue evolving, and changing away from the offensive Hubbard policies, if they can.

There is so much context, so much writings on Scientology, and Hubbard wrote so much.

They are just overwhelmed with Hubbard's rules.

When I routed out, in 2003, I repeatedly asked the two OSA staffers on the RPF, I had as my RPF's RPF MAAs, I had Gigi Scudilari and Ed Parkin, and I asked Ed to see WHAT LRH policy said I had to sign the damn final legal agreements.

I really went bonkers internally, mentally, when I was made to sign my first round of those self-incriminating self invalidating Jeannie Gavigan composed legal docs, on video.

It is such a massive self invalidating experience. Kirsten Caetano just acts like an angel trying to reassure people that "everyone signs these" legal documents.

If Tommy Davis, if Kirsten Caetano, if Moxon, were somehow to defect, they'd be in trouble.

They have no other people to take over for them.

I saw in Tommy, years ago, on the BBC show, that he was destined to be the new PR front for them.

Tommy's better than Heber, better than Rinder.

I hate these legal docs.

Tommy's now going to have to deal with the Hubbard conflicting policies, the policies that drove OSA to legally gag ex members and ex Sea Org members, and Tommy will have to now see how he can PR cover up this practice of making ex members sign these gagging legal agreements.

I have always hoped Scientology WOULD act high principled, I think we all did, when we were in.

Now, I wonder if they can unwrap themselves sufficiently from the Hubbard conflicting policies, that make them out as lyers.

I hope for their sakes, they can unravel from Hubbard's 1984isms and Catch 22s, and conflicting policies that say gag members on the one hand, but his policies grandly state Scientology respects man's freedom to speak freely, the Scientology Creed, namely.

Point by point, they will have to discard Hubbard's policies that conflict with the high principled ideas that truly are the best in humanity.

And point by point, as people COME OUT of the Sea Org, please have them share their latest experiences on the various chat sites.

This legal gagging, is one small practice that has to cease.

It is anti free speech. It's a typical blindspot.

I wish Jeannie Gavigan would defect and tell the whole behind the scenes history of all the gag agreements she's written.

Jeannie has done thousands of these gag agreements.

Such an abomination of free speech.

I wonder what goes on in Jeannie's head.

Such a waste.
Chuck Beatty 412-260-1170, Pittsburgh
<<

Iknowtoomuch

Suppressive Person

Posts: 913

Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:13 am

Post Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:15 am

The only thing Tommy is better at is lying. And he's ok with lying. It's for the greater "good".
"Everybody has a right to believe what they want to believe. But I don't believe that anybody has a right to trick anybody, to hurt anybody, to harm some body, for their own purposes." - Jason Beghe
<<

chuckbeatty77

User avatar

EPFer

Posts: 20

Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:44 am

Location: Pittsburgh, 412-260-1170

Post Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:53 am

Iknowtoomuch wrote:The only thing Tommy is better at is lying. And he's ok with lying. It's for the greater "good".


Hubbard's extreme policies always blaming everyone and NOT admitting fault in Hubbard, are the problem.

Hubbard is the extreme unquestioned authority, and these references should be read by ex Sea Org members, and ex Sea Org members should reflect on the Hubbard's rules that caused every one of these problems:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_Experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance (particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_ ... experiment )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love-bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_(Psychology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_ ... onsibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_confo ... xperiments
Chuck Beatty 412-260-1170, Pittsburgh
<<

Grundy

User avatar

Sticky Master

Posts: 1067

Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:41 am

Post Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:03 pm

Another point btw - personal contracts are legally limited to 7 years in the US. To extend it requires signing a new contract.

I don't know if the "bond" can legally be enforced beyond 7 years regardless of whether it was "voluntary" or not (which I can assure all of you - it's not.)
<<

chuckbeatty77

User avatar

EPFer

Posts: 20

Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 2:44 am

Location: Pittsburgh, 412-260-1170

Post Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:32 pm

Grundy wrote:Another point btw - personal contracts are legally limited to 7 years in the US. To extend it requires signing a new contract.

I don't know if the "bond" can legally be enforced beyond 7 years regardless of whether it was "voluntary" or not (which I can assure all of you - it's not.)


Good to know, thanks.

A whole article should be written with all these excellent points about how these gags are not used, how they are illegal, how they don't hold weight later than 7 years, etc.

All excellent "re-educational" info for ex Sea Org members who only have the Hubbard rules and OSA legal docs bouncing around in their heads.
Chuck Beatty 412-260-1170, Pittsburgh
<<

mickwenlock

Clear

Posts: 117

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:04 pm

Location: Colorado USA

Post Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:33 pm

There is another point Chuck - AFAIK any contract in the USA that abrogates your constitutional rights is unenforceable. What we need to do would be to compile these questions into one "brief" and then find a constitutional lawyer and scholar to render an opinion.

In your case - the part you quoted - no court in the USA can force you to not speak or publish your opinions or your recollections. Bear with me here - you can have signed a contract with the CofS to not do this, they can have checked it with a lawyer. the problem for THEM is that a court in the USA cannot enforce an unconstitutional item. Freedom of Speech is something that the GOVERNMENT is forbidden from constraining - and that includes the courts.
If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
<<

Megalomaniac

EPFer

Posts: 34

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:50 am

Location: Newport, Oregon

Post Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:46 am

mickwenlock wrote:There is another point Chuck - AFAIK any contract in the USA that abrogates your constitutional rights is unenforceable. What we need to do would be to compile these questions into one "brief" and then find a constitutional lawyer and scholar to render an opinion.

In your case - the part you quoted - no court in the USA can force you to not speak or publish your opinions or your recollections. Bear with me here - you can have signed a contract with the CofS to not do this, they can have checked it with a lawyer. the problem for THEM is that a court in the USA cannot enforce an unconstitutional item. Freedom of Speech is something that the GOVERNMENT is forbidden from constraining - and that includes the courts.


Hi, I didn't read this whole thread. Just a comment on freedom of speech.

I signed a non-disclosure agreement with my current employer, at the time of hiring. It's a "high-tech" (hah!) company and I'm not supposed to give out various types of information because it could hurt the company's competitive advantage. Sometimes, this actually works against the company and the general good because it inhibits collaboration. And I don't like not being able to say much about my work. But I think it is legal and enforceable, in my case. My case is far different than the agreements you are discussing because I was under no duress when I signed, I was allowed to have copies of the contract, etc. It was all on the up and up.

Mac
It will come to an end. My argument is, it does not have to end badly. -- Ron Paul
<<

outlander

OT8 Class 12

Posts: 416

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 2:30 am

Location: USA

Post Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:24 am

Enforceable confidentiality and non compete are generally very specific and limited. For example, we have a non compete/trade secrets agreement. For a period of two years after employment terminated with us, they can't work for a direct compeditor within 150 miles, pretty much the maximum distance enforcable. It covers things like our vender base, client and credit history, pricing, our chemestries, engineering for plant, regulatory and business strategy. Stuff that we have spent hundreds of thousands or millions to develop that can be carried away on a piece of paper, stolen, and used by someone else or sold.
It is signed at initiation of employment, and sometimes we have to modify it to fit needs.
Interestingly enough, on the other side, new law is emerging that indicates if an employee invents a technology or tool, or method of "whatever", unless they were specifically hired to invent or improve process, those improvements ... that intellectual property is actually the property of the employee.
They can be a valuable business tool, but anyone using them knows they have strict limitations ... if you try and make them broad like the one I signed coming out of the SO, it is legally unenforceable. That is why the church does not try to legally enforce it, it is impossible, they rely on the threat of harassment and fear because most people natively feel obliged and respectful of anything they signed.
Create that of your life that which you would like to see in a changed world. Ghandi
<<

mrtampa

Clear

Posts: 97

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:05 am

Location: TAMPA

Post Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:09 am

if you leave from hiher org you have to sign stuffs.

Return to Staff & Sea Org

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software