I made a definitive effort after your correction to move ahead from the splayed notation that I made on the 1-st postings and have engaged several to move ahead of the combative-vitriolic so something productive, though weakened when speaking to Texas Lawyer as that goes into convoluted matters at the bench of law where I am not trained sufficient to speak their level and continued work apace, arriving at a total re-write as directed by one whom had been in for decades and sees where the flaws are.

My particular condition, which I yielded to on the original posts, works well with Martin Leufray III whom declares: I am a scientist. And a Scientologist. There is only one reason I report as a Scientologist. 90%+ Of what lhr says passes peer-reviewed tests of science. Not your opinion. People who are trained to break your heart and make you wrong. Scientists.

And is easy to work with in the context of Chuck Beatty’s directions just now: « … really only OT 3, 4, 5 and 7 ….» in neutral language minus the crank crackpot exorcism commands and adding in suitable jokes.

Oh yeah?

In front of lawyers?

Again please?

Somebody does not know a whole lot about lawyers.

PunditFact: Newt Gingrich says China stole $360 billion in Intellectual Property.

RTC et al David Miscavige in the personna needs to worry about them, not me.

Personality here whom is posting as OT-8 is Great knows his materials like few can and is clean on the issues involved with an absence of …….

Takes awhile to explain.

See these and issue cleanup if seems productive.

Works in-progress:

Needs simplification and re-draft:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/theundergrondbunker/scientology_responds_to_garcia_accusations_sexy_virginia_congressional_candidate_visits_an_org/#comment-2685234693

Lost it on back timing needing extraction from familial humanistics, as there are 2-differing bodies of law. One of which is not subject to Public Servant statute and the other is a ( the subject of discussion ) whom has been asked by persons claiming to be Scn to provide a list of Scn, but is on a declare-order hence Scn has been issued an order by Public Servant to produce { ….? Open Meetings Law Privileged and Protected vs well if they ( the pleading parties ) are Scn they why cannot they produce a list?

Plenty have been formally declared and are assembled here, ready and live on the front-lines.

Yet the will not cull from the list here?

Popcorn throwing hoodlums on the front-row attack and will only attack and ridicule.

SP definition pro-forma.

Next:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/theundergrondbunker/scientology_responds_to_garcia_accusations_sexy_virginia_congressional_candidate_visits_an_org/#comment-2686429037

The fail there goes deep into work where Chuck Beatty is proficient, and has fails which are hidden and un-seen for the un-wary which Hubbard spoke of so correctly in his exotic hand-written which so many find weird.

After explaining it—what the risk is—says: Good Luck! with emphasis, though some will never grasp it.

Martin Leufray III does—and I do too.

Perhaps even in ways that OT-8 is Great; Chuck Beatty; & David Miscavige do not understand.

I want to be even-handed.

Well said, Madame Duran. I would like to ad that Scientology does not advertise its abuses -in fact denies them-so how could one “agree” to them when “joining”. It’s not like joining a S&M club where everyone knows upfront what you are getting into. Bert’s line of reasoning is absurd and disingenuous.

Yeah.
Peg: Hey Al, did you miss me?
Al: With every bullet so far.

Yeah that sounds like something Mr. Bundy would say..

Got that line from “Married With Children”.

I’ll bet its not…….heh heh

Hardy Har Har…

With every bullet so far.