> A discussion about Reed Slatkin had some insightful information about how WISE worked,
> and some questions about the use of the tech, because it was undertermined that he was
> using the tech policies in his recruitment of investors of the Ponzi Scheme. Also
> includes questions about the use of the tech with Maria Pia Gardini, and quotes from
> Reed Slatkin from one deposition where he described the use of hypnosis in
> Dianetics/$cientology. Of course since this time, the confusion technique has been
> discovered:
>
> Jan 1 2002, 11:29 am
> Cerridwen    Re: The Confessions of Reed Slatkin "Feisty"
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/07ce7eaf0...
>
> Re: The Confessions of Reed Slatkin
>
> "Feisty" skytoday.com> wrote in message news:

>> Cerridwen wrote in message
>>news:91MJHPC837254.2958680556@anonymous.poster...
>> That brings the questions I have about his application of $cn.+
>>I have not heard mention > that he was on any WISE list. He

>
> did not have credentials to do what > he was doing, business wise.
> I wonder about how he applied $cn in business without any courses
> in the business route of WISE. It would just seem so unususal, being that
> he has been a member so long. He lived under these guidelines, living and
> breathing $cn, all  missing the business principles? So in that way, there was no
> reporting or submissions of > a 15 %% or whatever it is that is usually donated.
> After so much giving to the church, it > is really hard to believe that this churches
>  order of receiving money is so "loose."
>
> Let me clarify some data about WISE for you.
>
> Not all Scientologists that are members of WISE pay a weekly percent
> ( 10 or 15%%) of their income.
>
> There are several different types of WISE members.
>
> WISE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP
>
> "For people in business by themselves or who are just getting started,
> there is the WISE General membership level.  This provides all the
> basic benefits of WISE membership including: all Model of Admin Know-
> How program, all WISE Business Handling Checklists, listing in the WISE
> Directory and copies of all WISE publications.  A General
> membership gets you started and is available at the annual fee of
> $500.00"
>
> General members do not pay a weekly percentage of their business
> income.  The $500.00 is the annual fee and that's all they pay.
>
> WISE COMPANY MEMBERSHIP
>
> "A WISE Company membership provides you with eight LRH admin tech
> implementation programs....(I am going to omit the list of all the
> stuff WISE sends you)
>
> "You are also listed in the WISE directory, and receive copies of all
> WISE publications.  As a WISE Company member, you can train your
> employees on LRH admin tech courses in your own in house course room.
> (omit list of courses you can offer)
>
> "A Company member may consult other businesses after signing the proper
> license agreement and may deliver al the courses available at this
> membership level to clients.  A Company membership is for a business
> owner who has up to twenty staff.  The membership fee is $ 1500.00
> annually."
>
> This is where the 10 percent being paid to WISE comes into play.
>
> Example:
>
>  Joe Blow owns and operates XYZ Software Company.  He is a Wise Company
> member and has signed a "proper license agreement" with WISE that
> allows him to not only deliver certain courses to his own staff but he
> has permission to consult others on the LRH admin tech and offer them
> courses.  He will charge others for this service.  He must
> pay 10%% on the money he makes from consulting and delivering courses to
> others.  He does NOT pay 10 percent of his income from XYZ software.
>
> WISE CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP
>
> A corporate membership includes all of the "benefits" of a Company
> Members and allows you do deliver many more courses and services.  The
> membership fee is $6000.00 annually.
>
> Now the same rules apply as above.  As long as the Corporate Member has
> a "proper license agreement" with WISE,  he can sell consulting and
> courses to others for a fee and he ONLY pays 10%% to WISE on those
> services sold.  He does not pay 10%% to WISE on his own companies income.
>
> WISE CHARTER MEMBERSHIP
>
> "This membership level is composed of WISE members of the highest
> ethical standards [Remember I am quoting here, these are not my words]
> Each takes responsibility for bringing ethics and sanity to their
> business communities through the administration of ethics and justice
> matters within the membership.  They also provide a dispute resolution
> service.  WISE Charter members receive all the benefits of Corporate
> membership, They have the right to establish and serve on a regional
> WISE Charter Committee (the authorized body which administers ethics
> and justice in a area and handles business disputes) and collect fees
> for the services rendered [NOTE and the fees are not cheap
> either.]  Serving on a WISE charter Committee is a trust and all
> Charter member qualifications are reviewed before being authorize to
> serve on a WISE Charter Committee.  Charter members, after singing the
> proper license agreement may also consult Scientologists on LRH Admin
> tech.  The annual membership fee is $12,000."
>
> The same applies to Charter Committee Members.  They only pay 10%% of
> the income the get from actually delivering LRH Admin courses and
> consulting services.  PLUS they have the added status of being the only
> ones that can consult other Scientologists and handle Scientology
> business disputes.  I can assure you that WISE Charter Committee
> members stay very busy handling Scn business disputes.
>
> As I recall, and I am sure someone here has more accurate data, Reed
> Slatkin had not been a WISE member for some years.  However, even if he
> paid the $500.00 General Membership fee, he would NOT have had to
> report any specifics about his business to WISE, NOR would he have paid
> any kind of percentage to them.
>
> Scientology business do not tithe 10 percent of their business earnings
> to WISE or the C of S.  Some of them may elect to pay for auditing and
> training for their staff and get some kind of tax write off, but it is
> not demanded of Scn businesses to do that.
>
> While the C of S is invasive when it comes to the lives of
> Scientologists, they are not as invasive as you might think.  WISE
> companies do NOT report to WISE or the C of S about the internal
> activities, profits, etc. of the business.  The only time this would
> happen is if it was concerning the delivery of LRH tech.
>
> Reed was not reporting to anyone in the C of S about his daily
> investment activities nor was he expected to.
>

>>> These K/R's that Maria wrote would have been filed with a yawn.
>>> They would have been mostly ignored. Why? Well in Scn it's the
>>> regs job to separate you from your money. The viewpoint is that you
>>> have a case (a reactive mind) and the only reason why you wouldn't
>>> want to part with your money and give it to the C of S is because
>>> your "case" was getting in the way. Any "sane" person would want to
>>> give it to the Church.
>>> Additionally if the people involved in regging Maria Pia were
>>> "upstat" then it would definitely be ignored.

>> That would make sense in a way. I see that she was pursued because
>> she had lots of money. So were people by Slatkin. That is a parallel

>
> to case I think when people are "regged" of money. One difference in the
> Slatkin ordeal is that there were non-members. Maybe you can't "reg" per se a
> non-member but is there any question that he (Slatkin) would not be looking at> everyone in the same manner of which you speak - that they were sort
>
> of a "case." (being used to such judgement himself fr so long?)
>
> Reed Slatkin found himself caught between a rock and a hard place.  He
> made very bad investment decisions and lost a lot of money for a lot of
> people.  He could not imagine reporting his failure. Who knows exactly
> why?  I'll take a stab at what I think may have happened.  But it's
> only my conjecture.
>
> He may have been afraid that he would have gotten declared if he came
> clean and being a fully indoctrinated Scientologist was in fear
> of "loosing his eternity"   His solution was to develop this Ponzi
> scheme to cover his losses. He may not have even known what a Ponzi
> scheme was.  I don't honestly know.
>
> He was like the chronic gambler who was looking for the "big score".
> He did it once with Earthlink and he figured he could do it again.  He
> probably intended to "score big", refund everyone their money and
> retire as some kind of overworked genius hero.
>
> He would "reg" anyone and everyone that he could.  It appears he only
> got into serious trouble when he went for the big bucks with the non
> Scientologists.  If a Scientolgist was the one asking Reed for refund
> of millions of dollars this entire scene would have played out
> differently and we may not have ever found out about it.  The C of S
> would have attempted to handle this all on internal lines and would
> have demanded that the Scn'ers that were bilked out of all their money,
> keep their mouths shut about it until they
> sorted it out.
>

>> Also, if $cn uses scales or ways to determine where "people are at"

>
> how  can this not be used to judge who can be suckered more and who can
> not. Maria Gardini was certainly approached more frequently because she was> "very giving." Slatkin knew what he could get from where, possibly
>
> another application of $cn pronciples? I probably did not say that quite
> right, but maybe you get  the drift. There are courses for all of this stuff!
>
> LOL!  Well there is the professional Reg course!  Sorry that I find
> this amusing, but there is so much about the C of S that hits me funny
> these days.
>
> IMO, Maria Pia and others who go bankrupt have to take some
> responsibility for this.
>
> There are plenty of Scientologists that do not go bankrupt.  There are
> plenty of Scientologists who tell the regs (in a very nice way of
> course) to fuck off.
>
> Yes, the C of S is coercive, yes they are after your money and will
> keep after you until you give them all of it, but for Christ sakes,
> somewhere along the line a person has to stand up and say NO!. And many
> Scientologists do say  NO.   I know it's difficult and it doesn't
> excuse the actions of the C of S in any way.  Scientologists generally
> want to help and support their Church.  The Church knows the right
> buttons to push on people to get them to part with their money. But
> this does not mean that THEY HAVE TO DO IT!
>
> Con men have been around for a long time.  Some people are easier to
> prey on than others.  I truly believe that Reed did start out with good
> intentions and thought he could invest Scientolgists money for them and
> make them a tidy profit so they could pay for services at the Church.
>
> I don't think he started out with the intention to fuck people over.
> His o/w write up shows that.  He was guilt ridden at what he was doing.
>
> If he was truly evil from the start, he would never have attempted to
> do that o/w write up.  Scientologists do o/w write up because they want
> to handle their unethical actions.
>
> This does not excuse Reed in any way!!! He somewhere along the line
> decided to handle his problems of failed investments by becoming a
> criminal.  This is sad.  It's sad for the victims of his fraud and it's
> sad for Reed and his family.
>
> While we can all gloat that another "OT" committed crimes that have an
> adverse effect of the C of S, it is not, imo, a normal daily occurrence
> for Scientologists to do this.
>
> Yes, it happens and it happens way more than it should based on what
> Scn preaches.  And it's easy to gloat when the C of S promotes that
> Scientologists are "the most ethical people on the planet".  It's all
> part of that elitist crap that the C of S promotes and it's
> false.
>
> But where Scn does have some responsibility for Reed Slatkin is in
> their dreaded indoctrination policies.
>
> If Reed was not afraid of "loosing his Bridge", if he had a Church that
> he could have gone to where there was some compassion for him when he
> screwed up and lost money way back in the 80's, then this entire scene
> could have been averted.
>
> When people invest in the Stock Market or Commodities or what ever, its
> a gamble!  No one is assured profits.  People loose money in the Stock
> Market all the time.  Reed was unqualified to represent people from the
> very start.  However, Scientologists tend to trust other Scientologists
> especially ones that are OT's.
>
> Reed should have been able to say that he screwed up and lost peoples
> money way back when it first happened.  He was unable to do that.
> Partly due to his own stupid pride, and partly because he knew if he
> did, the C of S would have declared him.
>

>>> Don't get me wrong. I am not stating this is my viewpoint, but it is
>>> the operating viewpoint of the C of S.

>> I understand. I appreciate your explaining. For some reason I keep
>> seeing a "pattern" of people who are "explainable" by $cn order and
>> the responsibility placed on the individuals rather than these "policies."

>
> I understand.  I do think the responsibility lies mostly with the
> individual, but I would agree that the C of S also shares
> responsibility in creating bad situations for people based
> on their totalitarian policies.
>
> Cerridwen
>
> -----
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/9bcbd55a9...
>
> http://www.slatkinfraud.com/depo_jan.htm
>
> 24       The reactive mind is the mind which doesn't think,
>
> 25  it doesn't analyze.  Often when you see hypnosis you see an
>
> Page 24
>
> 1   example of this.  Say that I were to hypnotize you and while
>
> 2   you were being hypnotized I said to you, Mr. Morgan, I'm
>
> 3   going to wake you up and if I say the word "chicken" you're
>
> 4   going to take off your tie.  So take it off.  Wake you up,
>
> 5   and chatting along, and I said, would you like to get some
>
> 6   chicken, and you take off your tie.  You've seen this.  And
>
> 7   if I were to ask you why you took off your tie he would say
>
> 8   -- he would not say it's because you told me if you use the
>
> 9   the word "chicken" I'd take off my tie -- he'd say, well, it's
>
> 10  hot in here, or too tight, or something like that.
>
> 11       Well, this sort of analogy, although it's trivial,
>
> 12  has a great deal to do with the whole basic, underlying
>
> 13  principle of Scientology.  And that is, when a negative
>
> 14  experience happens to somebody, where they're under stress or
>
> 15  under pain or heavy emotions, because it's difficult for the
>
> 16  average person to confront or look at all this, he tends to
>
> 17  store it over here in this thing called the reactive mind.
>
> 18  And over a lifetime -- and we'll get into what I call
>
> 19  lifetimes momentarily -- these experiences can reactivate on
>
> 20  a person.  So for example, if you fell out of a car when you
>
> 21  were a young child and bumped your head and had a headache
>
> 22  from it and got injured, and 20 years later you're driving
>
> 23  the car in a similar area of the circumstances -- the
>
> 24  environment or the time of day -- you might suddenly have a
>
> 25  headache, in the same way that the tie was taken off on the
>
> Page 25
>
> 1   word "chicken."  There's a stimulus response mechanism of the
>
> 2   mind; it's called the reactive mind.
>
> I've found several references so far in Dianetics regarding "ties" - several in the
> "Reactive Mind" chapter. The first is very descriptive, then there are frequent casual
> mentions.
>
> It would be interesting if someone had a downloaded version to see the frequency of the
> use of this word. Hubbard examples hypnosis in the chapter, and then goes into lengthy
> explanations and repetitive use of the word, "tie."
>
> I think Dianetics is a set up towards the suggestibility of a person. What are the
> chances
> Slatkin was halfway repeating what he learned from Hubbard?
>
> Hubbard in Dianetics:
>
> "A man is placed in a hypnotic trance by standard hypnotic technique or some hypnotic
> drug. The operator then may say to him, "when you awaken there is something you must
> do.
> Whenever I touch my tie you will remove your coat. When I let go of my tie, you will
> put
> on your coat. Now you will forget that I have told you to do this.
>
> The subject is awakened. He is not consciously aware of the command. If told he had
> been
> given an order while "asleep" he would resist the idea or shrug, but he would not know.
> The operaot then touches his tie. The subject may make some remark about its being too
> warm and so take off his coat off. The operator then releases his tie. The subject may
> remark that he is now cold and will put his coat back on. The operaor touches his tie.
> The
> subject may say his coat has been to the tailor's and with much conversation finally
> explain why he is taking it off, perhaps to see if the back seam is sewn properly. The
> operator then releases his tie and the subject says he is satisfied with the tailor and
> so replaces his coat. The operator may touch his tie many times and each time receive
> action on the part of the subject. Hypnotism is a laboratory tool. It is not used to
> any
> extent in Dianetic therapy.
>
> Dianetics, "The Reactive mind,"
>
> In Dianetics on the level of Laboratory observaton, we discover much to our
> astonishment
> that cells are evidently sentient in some currently inexplicable way... When that data
> is
> as scientific as the observation that when an apple is dropped under ususal conditions
> on
> earth it falls, one cannot help but accept it. Abandoning past theories may do damage
> to
> treasured beleifs and one's nostalgic love of the old school tie, but a fact is a fact.
>
> page 64-65...
>
> ====
>
> Maureen
>
> http://www.lermanet.com/exit/confusion-technique.htm