I wasn't talking about those documents. I was talking about the individual reports that came from Mike Rinder and the others who were interviewed. To my knowledge, they were not released, even in a redacted version.
It doesn't quite work that way...I am not making the claim the Mike Rinder has given incriminating evidence to authorities resulting in a credible threat to the church. To backup this claim, I would need to see evidence; and before you reference Church of Scientology Part 05 of 09, which I have reviewed, but does not appear to include Mike Rinder's name.We can't see the report and neither can statpush, yet he asserted about Mike Rinder:
"...he has not revealed anything which could seriously injure the church. Meaning, anything which would be a credible threat to the non-profit status, or would result in criminal charges." The implication is that justice hasn't been done because Mike Rinder has withheld information from law enforcement, yet Statpush posted no evidence to support such an assertion.
Sufficient information has been provided to the feds from many people (over 10 individuals) that were interviewed by the FBI. Also, in a different investigation from the feds by a different branch of government additional witnesses were interviewed. That investigation from years ago has not been made public to my knowledge.
I am not aware of the "huge volumes of evidence", maybe you can supply your source of this information?Here's an excerpt of something that Mike Rinder posted a couple of months ago concerning the 2009-2010 FBI investigation:
The 2009/2010 FBI Scientology Investigation: New Details
If you are wondering why nothing resulted from this extensive investigation — despite huge volumes of evidence amassed, realize the FBI does not prosecute cases. They are the investigators for the US Attorneys, and it is the US Attorneys Office that decides whether to prosecute a case or not. We do not have any documents from the US Attorneys Office about why they did not consider this to be a viable case to prosecute. You will note in the earlier blog post above, scientology retained the former chief of the Civil Rights Division of the US Attorneys Office in Los Angeles, Mary Carter Andrues, who had been responsible for human trafficking cases until 2007. If you wonder whether wealthy, determined criminals can influence a US Attorney into not doing their job, I highly recommend watching the HBO documentary Surviving Jeffrey Epstein or even better, reading Brad Edwards and Brittany Henderson’s brilliant book Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein. It is a story of incredible levels of influence exerted by Epstein over the US Attorneys Office for the Southern District of Florida. Despite what scientology tried to claim, lack of prosecution does not mean there was not extensive evidence of criminal activity.
My post that you're responding to was about your claim where you asserted about Mike Rinder:It doesn't quite work that way...I am not making the claim the Mike Rinder has given incriminating evidence to authorities resulting in a credible threat to the church. To backup this claim, I would need to see evidence; and before you reference Church of Scientology Part 05 of 09, which I have reviewed, but does not appear to include Mike Rinder's name.
No, sorry, you don't get to define what is a "credible threat". Whether a threat is considered credible or not isn't dependent upon arrests, convictions, or investigations. For a number of reasons, strong evidence of criminal acts can be handed over to law enforcement which then declines to act on it or the prosecutors choose not to act on it or launch an official investigation. There are credible threats that never result in an arrest & conviction or an official investigation.But, just to be clear, let me define "credible threat":
Information given to authorities which results in:
1) An arrest and conviction of a church official on criminal charges
2) An official investigation into the legitimacy of the church's non-profit status
3) There are actionable criminal acts, but remain undisclosed for some unknown reason
I had no intention of referencing CoS Part 05 of 09. But since you brought it up, did it include the name of any of the witnesses interviewed by the FBI and detail what they reported?It doesn't quite work that way...I am not making the claim the Mike Rinder has given incriminating evidence to authorities resulting in a credible threat to the church. To backup this claim, I would need to see evidence; and before you reference Church of Scientology Part 05 of 09, which I have reviewed, but does not appear to include Mike Rinder's name.
The "church" is a convicted felon with 11 from their organization going to prison and LRH being named an unindicted co-conspirator.For decades now, critics have accused the church of criminal wrong-doing. But never provides the burden of proof necessary to charge and convict. Instead, its all about how immoral the church is (which I agree), but this is a long way from criminal prosecution.
The federal authorities are responsible to represent the American people and are responsible for the administration of justice. Do you believe that they properly fulfilled that responsibility over the decades with regard to the CoS?It is easy to point the finger at federal authorities or institutions for this failure, but this gets us nowhere.
I am not Mike Rinder, I simply cross-posted an excerpt from his blog. HE is the source of that information. There are other sources as well, Graham Berry being one of them. I believe he wrote the petition to the White House back in 2011 that included this:I am not aware of the "huge volumes of evidence", maybe you can supply your source of this information?
Are you implying..."
Lotus I agree with you.Of wait, may be Mikes doesn't give a shit and write in his blog what HE thinks he shall write. >>>>
I was thinking more like "delusional". Propaganda attack??Call me cynical, if you wish.
The major takeaway I get from Statpush's propaganda attack on Mike Rinder is that OSA hasn't managed to steal an advance copy of Mike Rinder's new book and therefore doesn't know exactly what claims they will need to Dead Agent in the media on the day it is released.
Mike has made himself a public figure, which qualifies him to be scrutinised. I am questioning claims that Mike is "bringing down the church" or has somehow wrought harm upon the church by his "insider knowledge". I'm calling BS.Lotus said on another thread >>>
Lotus I agree with you.
Strangely, some Ex Scientologists feel a sense of *entitlement* on what Mike Rinder should do or write or reveal.
It's his life and he is sovereign to his own domain.
Few people have any idea of the cruelty he has endured for decades, starting when he was 18 years old, a 2nd gen born into it all
through no power of choice.
Statpush was a regular poster on Alanzo's blog.... (I don't visit but have been sent the Rinder attacks.)
Statpush's recent posts on this thread are remarkably duplicative word for word on Alanzo's repetitive attack lines on Rinder.
Miscavige is a sociopath. It's about control. He has absolute control over people. He can abuse them any way and any time. For people like him, this is perfect. He never suffers any consequences. The money is only part of that which gives him total control over people.Flash from the past 2012Key Question. . . DM [David Miscavige] ... surely after seeing all the crap that went downduring the years you were around and then later -- during and followingHubbard's death -- DM couldn't have been a "believer" in the tech.Therefore, assuming DM saw the tech as a failure, why do you think heworked so hard to gain complete control of the church and has since"worked tirelessly" to keep the church going so long? Do you think it'sreally just been about the money for DM?cowboy ~ Aug 6, 2012Absolutely not, it is not only about money!It is about money and power. What else could he do that would gethim unlimited supplies of both?Personally, I have absolutely no doubt that DM knows that the bulk ofScientology is worthless. He knows the damage it causes.As I say, I have no doubt of the above.
Yes, he IS a public figure and can be scrutinized just like the rest of us. I've not heard any knowledgeable people though make a claim recently that Mike is "bringing down the church", so that sounds a lot like a strawman argument.Mike has made himself a public figure, which qualifies him to be scrutinized. I am questioning claims that Mike is "bringing down the church" or has somehow wrought harm upon the church by his "insider knowledge". I'm calling BS.
I did address the content of your post, pointing out you had zero knowledge that would enable you to make the claim you did about Mike Rinder.And why is it, Karen, that you and others lazily attack my character, while never address the content of my post? It makes you guys look bad.
Let's at least try and string together a logical argument, without resorting to childish name calling.
If I were Mike Rinder's editor or publisher, I'd have pushed him to write a pretty hard-hitting expose --
as opposed to a People magazine, touchy-feely examination of his inner feelings and ideas, that is,
his path into sci and then out. My theme would go like this:
That's the book I would read!
Me too, LOL. I think I know how to do "market positioning" just a little bit.I love this billboard!