Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath Has Still Presented No Evidence of Criminal Activity by the Church of Scientology

Leah Remini's Scientology and the AftermathLast night’s episode of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath was a round table discussion of former Scientologists, and independent Scientologists, exposing the upper levels of Scientology so that people can make more informed decisions about their involvement. For that reason, it was a very valuable episode.

And Tony Ortega has gotten people who have completed OT 8 to reconstruct the materials that they studied while doing the level, and this reconstruction has been verified by others who have done the level as well.

Also, very valuable.

But because there are so many viewers who have angry and even hysterical accusations of criminal activity on the part of the Church of Scientology, and so many people calling for prison terms and federal investigations, one must ask that with all the resources at Mike Rinder’s and Leah Remini’s disposal – from A&E corporate lawyers to investigative journalists – where is the evidence that Scientology is actually breaking the law?

Shouldn’t we have seen some of this evidence exposed by now if Leah wants her federal investigation?

If no criminal activity is being exposed on the show, can we assume that this means they can’t find any?

And if they can’t find any, don’t they have a moral obligation to say so?

I see a fire hose of Internet hatred, cruelty, and even threats of violence towards Scientologists here at my blog after every airing of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath. I do not post any of it. It is really very disgusting.

At the faucet of this firehose of hate and anger directed at Scientologists, which Leah & Mike are intentionally cranking up and trying to increase to the gale force of Hurricane Irma, is the belief that Scientology is a “criminal organization”.

Yet no evidence has been presented on Leah’s show that Scientology has committed any crime at all.

Moral outrages, yes.

But criminal activity – no.

So when will Leah and Mike admit this?

My answer: Never.

They need viewers. And in order to have viewers they need to manipulate the truth about Scientology in such a way as to continually outrage the public to keep them watching. And admitting that they can not find any actual criminality will bring all their hysterical tribal warriors down to Earth – exactly where they do not want them lest people become disinterested in the show.

This, in my opinion, is Trump-level demagoguery and despicably irresponsible hucksterism. But it’s how you hit your numbers every week for your cable TV show, and why that business can become so corrosive to your soul.

Season 1 was fabulous. But so far Season 2 of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath is proving to be little more than emotional manipulation and Trumped up tribalism in pursuit of money and fame. Yes, exposure of OT8 is good for people to know, but that has been available to the public on the Internet for decades now.

This manipulation of the truth and peoples’ emotions comes with the territory of a cable TV show. And, after thinking about this, I have come to see that the cause of this is really the business end of cable TV itself, rather than – necessarily – the characters of Leah and Mike. This is their game, and they have to play it to win.

It all makes me realize that, as critics of Scientology, you should be careful what you wish for, because someday you just might get it.

If Mike and Leah have no evidence of criminal activity on the part of the Church of Scientology, they must say so – and soon.

, ,

Leave a Reply

136 Comments on "Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath Has Still Presented No Evidence of Criminal Activity by the Church of Scientology"

Photo and Image Files
Audio and Video Files
Other File Types
Clicky Web Analytics
newest oldest
Notify of

At the risk of sounding pro-Scn…it would be a sad day for democracy if Mike and Leah spawned a criminal investigation based on differences in morality. Imagine, if atheists accused the Baptist church of fraud and public deception which prompted a raid on Baptist churches?

As said previously…there will be NO criminal investigation into Scn. There will be the HOPE of a criminal investigation, but you will have to stay tuned for Season 3. At which point you will know you are being played.


Alanzo speaks:

“I see a fire hose of Internet hatred, cruelty, and even threats of violence towards Scientologists here at my blog after every airing of Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath. I do not post any of it. It is really very disgusting.”

LOL, got any proof? Here at your blog! There are only a few people willing to post here. Why won’t you post the hatred, cruelty, and even theats of violence towards Scientologists at your blog?

I think the show didn’t portray violence against scientologists.


Quality, not quantity


I’ve seen posts by people which stated that the church embezzled money from their credit cards without their permission. Slapping Maria Pia Gardini-assault. DM punching people-assault. People being harassed at their homes -harassment. My credit cards were screwed wuth after I left in such a way that it was obvious it was CofS. I hadn’t given my permission. Fictitious ostrich farm-Raul Lopez. Libel. Also illegal. Violation of child labor laws…


With the amount of legal advice the CoS buys they always seem to go up to but not past the point of illegality. I suppose the squirrel busters could set up shop outside of my house and as long as they stay on public property they wouldn’t be breaking any laws. It would take public opinion to get rid of them. If I posted a video of them doing it on the internet a hundred or more people in my town might become aware of what they were doing. The internet changed everything.

The Aftermath is still stuck in “All Scientologists Believe” mode.

Speaking of the internet, this is from the September issue of Time magazine:

Taking Selfies Might Make It Harder To Put Down Your Phone –

A study in “Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking” found that people are more likely to experience nomophobia – mobile phone separation anxiety – if they use their cell phones for creating or sharing memories associated with self-identity, like selfies.

nomophobia LOL


I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the show. It’s primary purpose is to expose abuse not to criminally charge, It is also intended to keep people from falling into the Scientology trap.


There’s something else about Aftermath that hasn’t been mentioned much, that being “reputational”. The Aftermath portrays all scn-ists, past, present and future as being blind fools or at least totally gullible. It’s no big deal to me, but a couple of my friends or acquaintances who know of my past participation in scn might have passed it off as “something Richard was once into” but now think “boy was he dumb”. laughter
It makes me think of the Jim Carey movie “Dumb and Dumber”.


I have a different view, only because I studied up a bit on rhetoric, namely the 3 means of persuasion, here was my beginning education: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

It took me awhile to somewhat understand, and I also read some of the books mentioned in the website.

As far as reputational, and I think you mean reputation, why that is ethos or character. So as far as Dumb and Dumber goes, I explain to some that question my involvement in terms of ethos, pathos and logos, and how Hubbard tricked us. And I try to use examples.

Specifically as you mention, reputation, and I say Hubbard built up his reputation or character by claiming to be he was a nuclear physicists, he studied abroad, etc etc. And this is like your resume where you state your accomplishments in jobs past to land a new job. And even in employees like the Enron company that was making money hands over fist, and even Madoff, and Reed Slatkin and so on. People who got involved with those people based it probably due to reputation or ethos.

So it is easy to get tricked, not only in scientology but in other ventures, I might tell another who thought me of being dumb to get involved in scientology.


Gib – I could elaborate but I’ll be pithy. I no longer make excuses or apologize for my scn background. I did what I did because I did it and I got what I got from it. For me it was an interesting and worthwhile life experience.


Richard, why did you do what you did to get involved in scientology, and what did you get from it?

What exactly were your worthwhile experiences?


Hi Gib – The pros and cons of the SUBJECT of scn have been debated on hundreds of blog topics with tens of thousands of following comments. I choose not to enter into that conversation any more. I have nothing new to add and in my opinion it’s all been said before and anyone can reach their own conclusions.
Briefly, my own entry point was that I hadn’t read a book in a year or two and was feeling intellectually dead. Now what other cult could I have joined which discussed body-mind-spirit, analytical mind-reactive mind-somatic mind, charts of human behavior, sitting down with a person and counselling them, and so on and so on and so on. It definitely kept me interested for a few years!

Media Lush

Hi, old chap, a bit off topic to this post but sort of relevant in the big picture of things.

I’m curious if you have any thoughts on my being banned from the Bunker what seems eons ago. I have my theories but would rather get your thoughts first before relay them.

To refresh your memory here’s the gist of the story:



(Alanzo) “Yes, exposure of OT8 is good for people to know, but that has been available to the public on the Internet for decades now.”

In what way do you feel that the “exposure” of New OT8 is something good to know, Alanzo? I am just curious. I am also curious as to what you meant by “exposure”, as I am not a native speaker and to me the word “exposure” denotes something negative. Are you attributing any specific “negativity” to that Scn level, and if so why? I am just curious, you know.

This is what Ortega wrote on his blog, about what Leah had allegedly said regarding discussing the religious beliefs of Scn in her show. The capitalization within brackets if for my own emphasis :

“Last night’s episode of the A&E network’s Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath was special in a number of ways. Through the first season and into the second, Leah had said [SHE DIDN’T WANT] to get into specific Scientology ‘beliefs,’ and she mentioned the Xenu story in particular, saying that it was [IRRELEVANT TO HER MISSION TO EXPOSE SCIENTOLOGY’S ABUSES]. But last night, she got into Xenu and the rest of Scientology’s ‘Bridge to Total Freedom’ in a big way.”

I am VERY curious to know in what EXACT ways is it “good” to publicly disseminate the beliefs of a religious organization, while mocking them as they DID (specially Leah) in her show? Care to explain that, please? Thanks!

Doloras LaPicho

Congrats on Leah and Mike for their Emmy, but Ortega’s chest-thumping and gorilla-like bravado about how HOLLYWOOD WILL NOW DESTROY SCIENTOLOGY is the act of the pathologically insecure.

Note also that he is careful NOT to deny the urban myth that “Rathbun has gone back to Scientology”, even though that is nothing but heated speculation on his part that he wants to make true because Marty challenged his status as alpha-male. All that stuff sarcastically saying “don’t mess with the Troika”? Marty now lives inside his head, rent-free.

Doloras LaPicho

Even cracked.com knows about the serious business:

“You hear experts talk about how extremists get “radicalized” — how a guy went from a mild-mannered food inspector in San Bernardino to a brainwashed suicide attacker in the course of a year or so. But it really isn’t a mystery, and we all form less-murderous versions of this. All it takes is a closed like-minded social circle in which it’s considered unacceptable to disagree with the group, and then devote that group to hating something. It doesn’t even matter if the thing truly deserves hating — it still turns toxic. In fact, it works better if it does. “How can you criticize any flaw in our group’s behavior when the other side is [Scientologists]! That’s literally saying that both sides are the same! The mere existence of pure evil on the other side mathematically means our side is pure good!”

At that point, no criticism is possible and there is nothing to moderate the rage. The rhetoric ratchets higher and higher as each member tries to top each other (to prove their own righteousness by demonstrating they hate the target most), and there is no method for reining it in. Moderate voices from outside the group are excluded completely, anyone from the inside who takes a moderate tone can be shouted down with accusations of being an enemy sympathizer. Soon, everything from objectively grotesque insults to elaborate torture fantasies are tossed around without a second thought.”


Chris Thompson

It’s interesting to discover your blog’s reincarnation, yet again. I didn’t realize you were blogging but I’ve re-followed it. It’s also interesting to scan over the comments and see many of the same names I’ve followed for over a decade still writing the same fallacious arguments. It’s not what I would hope for but I am not particularly surprised.

Putting “apostasy” on a scale as you’ve done seems relevant to me. Unravelling doesn’t happen all at once just as coming on board doesn’t happen all at once.

Compulsion to construct “belief systems” seem hardwired into humans and maybe the other mammals as well. It’s surely simpler and uses less mental energy than maintaining a skeptical and watchful attitude.


Hey, Chris!

Good to see another one of the same old names. 🙂

You wrote: “It’s also interesting to scan over the comments and see many of the same names I’ve followed for over a decade still writing the same fallacious arguments.”

I thought it would be interesting to see if one of those same old arguments could be INTELLIGENTLY argued this time – and it didn’t go so well. I really wanted to follow it through in a sincere debate and was honestly willing to accept whatever came up as a rational discussion.

But alas, perhaps in the same way that you see the same “fallacious” arguments, I see the same old responses to them. I mean even the same wording the critics established over the years. Their arguments apparently became self-evident axioms and nothing more need be said! 😉

(Not that I want to go at it again with anybody. If Alanzo can’t do it, no one can. 🙂 )


The only thing I’ve wondered about is truancy. If Scientology entities have custody of these children from their parents, and aren’t providing the children with acredited education, and aren’t sending the children to acredited schools, haven’t they broken the law?

Created by Alanzo