ESMB is now closed to new registrations. Please go to and register there.


Mike "I'm All About the Crimes" Rinder

Discussion in 'Office of Special Affairs' started by Alanzo, Sep 5, 2019.

View Users: View Users
  1. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    DM does not have children.

    You didn't answer my question. If you had small children, would you put yourself in legal jeopardy once you had started a new life outside the cult in which you were raised since a child? I'm not saying I'm condoning it. It's just is.

    What would you do?

    Ron is long dead, and his children were grown before the fit hit the shan in July 1977, and informnation became available in 1979 and then through the 1980s.
  2. Emma

    Emma Con te partirò Administrator

    What is a crime?

    "An action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law."

    Here is a list of them:

    What is a criminal?

    "A person who has committed a crime."

    Unless DM has been charged & convicted of any of these things, you can't call him a criminal. It's slander or libel to do so. You can call him cruel, brutal, evil, dictatorial, conniving, lying etc. But none of those things are illegal, only immoral. However people do call him a criminal so why doesn't he sue?

    One school of thought is that DM hasn't sued anyone for defamation/libel because it would just bring even more attention to him and the secrets he's trying to hide. Is this true? In defending a defamation case, the defendant would have to prove the claims are true, but who can do that?

    How do we find out if he is guilty of a crime? What if there are no crimes?

    Only crimes will result in his removal and any real change to Scientology. If there are no crimes, or no one (not even the FBI) has enough proof to prosecute them, where do we go from here?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Love Love x 1
    • List
  3. Emma

    Emma Con te partirò Administrator

    Personally I'd shut the hell up. Does that make me innocent? I guess it does until proven guilty.
    If Ron had small kids at the time, would it have been OK to criticise him and demand he tell all?
    • Like Like x 1
    • LOL LOL x 1
    • List
  4. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    I have discussed this many times in the past, and share your concerns.

    Even though I've repeatedly defended Alanzo on prior occasions, I simply do not trust the present incarnation of Alanzo.
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  5. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    That's a flippin good question.

    I would hope that I'd do the right thing. I can't say that I would. But I want to think I'm a better man today then I was when I was in the cult. I also hope that I would never willingly commit a criminal act.

    Does this mean I should be sympathetic to Mike Rinder then so?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  6. Emma

    Emma Con te partirò Administrator

    Forget Alanzo. I didn't mention him.

    What are we to do now? We can't expect Mike to put himself in legal jeopardy (assuming he even has any) and we have no proof of any actual crimes. So where to now?
  7. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    Which means that it is about the man, not the message.

    See why that is so problematic for me?
  8. Dotey OT

    Dotey OT I was in the wrong place at the wrong time

  9. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Aren't "the crimes" simply a means to an end? I thought the end we wanted, at least for now, is the removal of the 501(c) shield protecting the cult. Yeah, DM's a nasty piece of work, and however satisfying it might be to imagine him in the slammer, I don't see that as ending disconnection. No "we're a religion" legal defence means curtains for the cult in lawsuits, no "religious volunteers" status for employees means minimum-wage laws which would bankrupt almost all service org corporations.

    • Like Like x 4
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  10. Emma

    Emma Con te partirò Administrator

    I don't think anything will ever end disconnection. You can't stop Scientology doing it just like you can't stop any other kind of religious shunning. A change in the tax exempt status won't change that.

    Removal of the 501(c) will hurt their pockets, nothing more.
  11. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    Man, I'm just here for the women mate. That and the occasional free beer.
  12. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Thank you.

    Do not mind the logic of the argument, keep staring at the man behind the curtain! Who is not behind a curtain at all and never was.
  13. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    Stop making it easy weasy for people to do just that. Mind your manners. You are in a public forum.

    Act accordingly.

    Can I get back to my free women and beer now?
  14. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    If you understand this, then why would you become distracted onto civil suits which DM eats for lunch?
  15. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    You watched the Aftermath finale. Do you believe the former FBI agent was lying about the value of civil suits?
  16. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    That might be true if it actually was a religion, but it's a crooked business that's only viable if it has tax exemption (or tax cheating) and (de facto) slave labor.

    Public opinion makes the difference re. religious cloaking, more so than any civil or criminal case.
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  17. Emma

    Emma Con te partirò Administrator

    All that you say is true. If they had to pay staff like a normal business they'd go broke. However it wouldn't stop people volunteering. I knew I wouldn't get paid and I "volunteered" anyway.

    When did public opinion ever change the decisions the IRS make? Asking for real, I don't know. Do they bow to public pressure or is it the legislators that have to act? What would have to happen here honestly?
  18. He-man

    He-man Hero extraordinary

    I talked to a friend who is an accountant(not an expert at all) in the US, she said that the Treasury department can initiate proceedings, if commissioned to do so, or a US citizen can file a complaint, which means that they will investigate(and most likely bin it).

    You need political pressure she said. That would most likely never happen since other groups of interest would lobby against it.

    So in essence, lobby senators and congressmen from both parties to put pressure on the Secretary of Treasures or get the President interested in it.

    I made a thread on it but it didn't generate much traction.
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  19. Tanchi

    Tanchi Patron with Honors

    Because Gerry Armstrong has been so vocal re: Mike Rinder, (I wont name those current high profile critics he also criticizes and corrects), I have tried to understand why. This is a question I have tried to ask in other places, but imo, Armstrong is treated like a sacred cow.

    Bear with me. Rinder, being former OSA, was familiar with the doctrine and the reality of Fair Game. He has stated that on Aftermath and interviews, etc.

    Armstrong also stated in an interview with S. Taylor that he was aware of the doctrines. He had worked for GO Intelligence. In another question, he said, (I'm paraphrasing) he like the others were willing to overlook possible illegalities for the greater good.

    If Armstrong knew about Fair Game, why would he trust Rinder in the first place? Why is he so bent on getting an apology or his version of accountability from Mike Rinder for being fooled by him? For doing his job, in the name of the greater good?
  20. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    A lot of history here. This is a guest post on my blog where Gerry has answered at least part of your question.

    What Gerry has been asking for has been very simple and very specific.

    Guest Post: Gerry Armstrong Doesn’t Need an Apology – He Wants the Truth From Mike Rinder