Clearing Archive Roboposter
roboposter at lightlink.com
Sat Oct 17 18:06:02 EDT 2020
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
VISIT FROM THE CHURCH
ROSS - 3
07 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Leonardo
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
To All Interested Parties:
Last night about 8:30 PM while writing a letter, I heard and then
saw that my front yard security lights had gone on. I looked out the
window and saw two well dressed gentlemen, one of them carrying a
briefcase on my porch, approaching my front door. I approached the
front door myself just as they knocked and opened the door. I thought
from their appearance and demeanor which was slightly apologetic, that
they were Jehovah's Witnesses out to give me some copies of their
publications. I thought that, until the man who had knocked asked me
whether I was Bob Ross, and introduced himself as Bob Sullivan
representing the Church of Scientology.
I answered, "Yes, I'm Bob Ross you may not come in." I then said,
excuse me, went to my desk, picked up a mini-tape recorder, pushed the
record button and slipped the recorder into my shirt pocket to record
The next thing I did was to ask them for identification. Bob
Sullivan showed me a California Driver's License numbered N6691946.
Bill Zalen showed me a driver's license numbered A0764999.
Bob Sullivan did most of the talking saying almost immediately that
now that the church had settled with the IRS, they had funds and people
available to deal with other people.
Bob Sullivan then said that they were there to discuss with me
violations of copyright. I told him I was not knowingly or
intentionally violating any copyright and if they thought I was that
they should communicate with me and I would look into the matter.
I find this intensely interesting because I read newspaper reports
of a copyright case involving The Christian Science Church and the
writings of Mary Baker Eddy. The Supreme Court I believe held that
inasmuch as the Christian Science Church considered Mary Baker Eddy's
writings as church scripture they were not covered by copyright.
Inasmuch as the Church of Scientology has long proclaimed for legal
reasons that the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and his lectures as well are
all church scripture the same ruling might well be considered to apply
to them. However, it might take another court battle up to the supreme
court to determine whether the ruling that applied to the Church of
Christian Science indeed applies to the Church of Scientology anent
((anent = regarding)) copyrights and trademarks.
In the absence of such a decision, the Church of Scientology can
legally sue for copyright infringement without having the case summarily
dismissed as frivolous and therefore the merits of the case might well
be lost under the burden of paying court costs and fighting court
battles. Thus the rights and wrongs of the issue may not determine in
the end who wins in this arena but only who has more money to pursue
court battles. Most lawyers do not work for free.
However, if a person being sued for copyright infringement was able
to find a competent lawyer ready to assume to burden of fighting the
case as high as necessary, that lawyer could then countersue the church
for frivolous use of the courts to harass after winning and be awarded
multi-millions of dollars in damages.
Now back to the conversation. Bill Zalen pulled out of his
briefcase a copy of the Spring '93 issue of the Free Spirit and read a
few words out of it referring to an article I had written entitled
"Independent N0Ts," which he reads as independent knots. He then asked
me whether he could purchase a copy of that document from me. I
answered that my policy was to not sell any of my materials knowingly to
any member of the church. I did not say why. If I had I might have
said, "I am not prepared to make things easier for a group that treats
me as an enemy, subject to Fair Game." Secondly, "What I do is so
different from the Church definition of Standard Tech that I doubt that
they could use what I have written," and thirdly, in any case, "I do not
wish to provide them with my ideas at the price of a single copy of my
Then Bill Zalen, pulled out of his briefcase a copy of a letter I
had written in response to a legal letter on possible copyright
infringement from the church. In my letter, I had also said, "I am not
knowingly or deliberately violating any copyrights, If you see any
violations let me know and I will look into it."
As part of the conversation I told them that I was not against the
church, but I was very disappointed in the fact that the church was not
moving forward on the goal to clear the planet. As I see it the high
prices they are charging prevent many people from getting auditing. I
did not say, because I did not think of it at the time, "Now that the
legal struggle with the IRS is over, and two million dollars a month is
no longer needed for that fight, Church prices could be considerably
I did say, that I had been harassed by church members, though I
couldn't prove it in court. I believe that it was a church member who
punched a hole in the side wall of one of my car tires when it was
parked on the parking lot outside the building I was living in in
I believe that the same person or another, loosened a spark plug in
my VW Van engine while it was parked in the same parking lot a few days
later so that it blew out of the engine with a roar after I drove a
couple of blocks." My belief is that it was a church penitent trying to
strike a blow against a person he had been told was enemy to the church.
He would have done this in order to get back into good standing in the
church, by following the church ethics liability formula. "Strike a
blow against the enemy."
I did say, "The church would be very embarrassed if some church
members were proven to be doing illegal things, like a registrar putting
charges on a credit card that had not been authorized."
In the course of this conversation they told me that they had spent
time with Fleming Funch and had come to an agreement with him on
copyright matters. I spoke to Fleming after they left and he said, that
he had not permitted them into his house but had sat down with them
outside the house in his garage and later in a coffee shop discussing
things. Another friend, advised me to never get together with them
except in equal numbers to the number of church representatives to
prevent becoming overwhelmed, even if politely.
The entire interview lasted about thirty minutes.
After they left, I felt rather shaken and called a friend on the
phone. This friend told me that the church had not won as much as they
implied in their suit against Jim Bostrom for copyright violation. As
compared with what they sued him for, $250,000 for copyright
infringement, all the judge who heard the case awarded them was $250,
the price of the one pack which they had proved that he copied and sold.
I spoke to Fleming Funch who told me that the church had sent Class
IX C/S Barry Ross and Scott Musselman CO of OSA to talk with him.
((Commanding Officer of Office of Special Affairs, the new GO.))
These people he said were apparently more upset by his departures
from what they considered to be standard tech than they were by the
apparent copyright violations they were supposedly there to negotiate
about. I have a hunch that they're purpose is to dominate the
independent field and enforce their version of standard tech rather than
concern with copyright violations per se, inasmuch as they may not have
any more claim to copyright anyway.
What concerned me after they left was that I had been told some
time ago that Jim Bostrom's Word Processor had been confiscated along
with all of his books papers and diskettes, so that he couldn't even
write a letter. But I had not heard any details.
What I had heard years earlier were stories of raids on the
premises of Jack Horner and Chuck Berner in which unidentified people
trashed their tape libraries of purchased LRH tapes, and tapes of their
own lectures to students, and stole purchased copies of LRH books and to
prevent them from teaching what they had learned, to anyone else.
My friend told me that in Bostrom's case the church had invaded his
premises "legally" with a search warrant and a mob of thirty people,
much as the FBI went into church premises on their famous raid, but
without the chain saws.
It seemed on the face of it that church minions had confiscated Jim
Bostrom's word processor and other materials, more or less "legally."
As I have not been in the business of copying and selling Church
materials. But sell only my own auditing and writings I became less
worried about having the same thing happen to me. I am however, still
worried about illegal entry and sabotage. I am also worried about the
possibility their manufacturing "discovering" something as a basis for a
law suit that I would have to respond to,
I know from many stories over the years, including the trial which
put Mary Sue Hubbard and various other church executives in Jail that
members of the church are capable of illegal acts. I have also read
through many of the documents garnered by the FBI in the course of their
raid on the GO Offices in LA which detail other illegalities. So, I
remain on guard. Even though the OSA is supposed to not do the nasty
things the GO did.
I have been maintaining a low profile in order to not attract
church attention. However, now that I have it, I see no point in
maintaining a low profile any longer. I also figure that attack is
better and higher toned than defense. Therefore this public letter.
One last thing. The security light that showed me my visitors I
just recently installed on my porch because some things were stolen off
my porch a few weeks ago. That theft made what had seemed for more than
a year to be a safe neighborhood, suddenly seem like a dangerous
neighborhood. It made me feel that my house might be broken into and
other more valuable things stolen.
Then more things were stolen from my backyard and I felt even less
secure. So I installed another security light on my garage. But, I
still wasn't sure whether the neighborhood had changed or whether I had
simply become an target for known unfriends. At this point, having been
visited by church people at an address which I thought I had
successfully kept from them, I know they know my address and so feel
that the neighborhood has not changed. So, if their purpose was to make
me feel less secure, their visit had the opposite effect.
I believe that the person who stole my belongings is the same
person who gave them my address. And if that is the person I think it
is, he is treating me as fair game in order to get back in good standing
with his brother who is in good standing with the church.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the
laws of the state of California, where I reside, that the foregoing is
true to the best of my knowledge.
B. Robert Ross
7826 Foothill Blvd
Sunland, CA 91040
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Oct 17 18:06:02 EDT 2020
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
More information about the Clear-L