Marty Rathbun’s 1st Video Talking About Scientology and the Aftermath

Here, Marty is describing a scene that appears to be an impromptu discussion in a car between Mike Rinder and Leah Remini in the final episode of Season 1 of Scientology and the Aftermath. But Marty is claiming here that it was actually a discussion in a car between Marty and Mike, in reality, 8 years before.

Is this true? Can anyone verify Marty’s claim here that he and Mike Rinder took all the people from Season 1 to the FBI 8 years before? And does this mean that Mike later took it to Leah as an idea for a scene in a reality TV show?

Now that we are 5 episodes into Season 2, what happened to that FBI investigation they met with the attorneys over at the end of Season 1? They’ve not mentioned anything about it in Season 2.

Why not?

Let’s have all opinions on this. Marty’s videos were basically censored on all the anti-scientology mafia network (ASMN) blogs and message boards. Marty was considered persona non-grata so discussing his video, and his ideas, have been decreed to be way off limits.

So let’s discuss it here.

Video 1 – Marty Rathbun on Leah Remini’s Scientology and the Aftermath.

START!

, , ,

18 Responses to Marty Rathbun’s 1st Video Talking About Scientology and the Aftermath

  1. marildi September 16, 2017 at 7:45 pm #

    At around 3:00 in the video Mary says that he met with Dept of Justice lawyers who told him there’s no case here with regard to those same people who were in the Season 1 episodes. Is this information that would be in the files of the DOJ and thus in FOIA files?

    • Alanzo September 16, 2017 at 7:57 pm #

      Very good point, Marildi.

      Easily verifiable.

      None of the Undie bunkerites are going to do this because it is information that would be embarrassing to the Anti-Scientology Mafia Network.

      You know, you would be great at this kind of research. You’re intelligent, you’re a good writer, you use good critical thinking skills – you should go after this document with a FOIA request!

      • DigThatGroove September 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm #

        “None of the Undie bunkerites are going to do this because it is information that would be embarrassing to the Anti-Scientology Mafia Network.”

        You are correct that such info would be embarrassing to various Scientology-critical communities such as ESMB and the posters in the Bunker’s comments section. Not only that, this info would be embarassing for Mike Rinder and Leah Remini in particular. For that reason, the CoS would have a strong interest in obtaining this alleged document and publishing. However, to the best of my knowledge such a document has not been produced yet.

        Miscavige’s PIs have been tailing Rathbun and Rinder since at least as early as when these two became criticst. Ergo, I assume that the CoS would have learned of any contact the DOJ had with Rinder and Rathbun almost immediately as it was happening. At that point OSA would have done whatever they could to obtain any document that can shed a light about Rathbun’s and Rinder’s conversations with DOJ officials. If such a document actually exists and can be obtained with a simple FOIA request the CoS would have probably already had it even before 08.12.2017 (the date in which Marty published the video embedded in this post).

        For all of the above reasons I posit that the likelihood of such a document actually existing is very small. The more time passes without this document being published the less likely it is to exist.

        • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 4:55 pm #

          Marty and Mike were both taking about having gone to the FBI as early as 2010. Whether they talked to the fbi is not in dispute. Whether they took the people who were all part of season 1 is in dispute.

          Especially since I don’t remember any flat out criminal behavior being exposed in Season 1.

          The fbi can’t do anything about disconnection or even child labor in a church.

          It’s one of those things that should inform the stomach acid levels you should expend over scientology. If it’s something they have a legal right to do, then it’s a matter of being an adult and accepting that this is simply a part of living in a free society.

          But where anything can be done, it should be done.

          • DigThatGroove September 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm #

            We seem to have a misunderstanding. My argument was not about the legality or illegality of any acts done by the CoS. Rather, it was about two premises you and marildi expressed support for. The first premise is that a document/s corraborating Marty’s claims exists, the second premise is that said document can be obtained via a simple FOIA request. I expressed doubts about the probability of this scenario by saying that the CoS has a strong interest in obtaining such a document (or for that matter any document pertaining to contacts between critics and the DOJ) and yet they haven’t got their hands on it, suggesting it doesn’t exist. I’m going to revise my argument a bit to say that there’s a second likely explanation as why the CoS hasn’t published this document yet. My second explanation is that such a document does exists but contrary to your claim cannot be easily obtained with a simple FOIA request.

            If a document or a bunch of documents like the ones you and marildi described actually exist, would the CoS have an interest in obtaining and then publishing them? If the answer to this question is no, what is your reasoning for saying so? If the answer is yes, how do reconcile this premise with the premises that such a document exists and that it can be easily obatined?

          • Alanzo September 18, 2017 at 2:42 pm #

            If there are documents recording Marty and Mike’s trips to the FBI – which many Exes have verified did occur – what possible reason would the Church of Scientology have in publishing those documents?

            They’d have a reason to obtain them, but I can think of no benefit whatsoever for the Church to publish them, and lots of reasons not to.

          • DigThatGroove September 19, 2017 at 12:47 am #

            “what possible reason would the Church of Scientology have in publishing those documents?”

            It wouldn’t have an interest in publishing every document regarding Marty’s and Mike’s contact with law enforcement, only a document corroborating the claims made in Marty’s video (and you seem to assume that such a document does exist). As you yourself said:

            “None of the Undie bunkerites are going to do this [send FOIA requests for documents that may corroborate Marty’s claim] because it is information that would be embarrassing to the Anti-Scientology Mafia Network.”

            I’m assuming that Rinder and Remini are also a part of what you’d call “Anti-Scientology Mafia Network”, therefore a document like the one you describe (if it does exist) would be embarrassing for them as well. Wouldn’t embarrassing Rinder and Remini be an incentive for the CoS to publish such a document? What would be their incentives for refraining from publishing it?

          • Alanzo September 19, 2017 at 7:19 am #

            I see what you are saying now. But still, no.

            Scientology is not going to use anything with the overarching scenario that two of their top Executives went to the FBI about them. That is a foot bullet that even David Miscavige will not use on himself.

            So we’re back to Marty’s original point in the video – that Marty and Mike Rinder gathered up these people and first took them to the FBI to try to prove some kind of criminality. And then when the FBI could not see anything to prosecute – even after sending in a plant – the FBI dropped the investigation.

            Do you know what that means? It doesn’t mean that Scientology ‘shut down’ the investigation, as Ortega has repeatedly claimed, but that the FBI has taken a good hard look and found nothing criminal to prosecute.

            And what does that mean in the grand scheme of things and just what level of stomach acid you should set aside for worrying about Scientology? If Scientology is doing nothing criminal that fundamental fact should be acknowledged and inform and infuse all criticism of Scientology – in my opinion.

            The hysteria of critics should be ratcheted down, and they should grow up just slightly and realize that in a free society, we allow religious freedom. And sometimes religious freedom looks like Scientology – don’t you think?

  2. Joe Pendleton September 17, 2017 at 12:53 am #

    Puerto Rico is not a colony, it is indeed part of the USA and Puerto Ricans are American citizens.

    Speaking of the mafia … I think someone made Marty an offer he couldn’t refuse.

    • Thetaclear September 17, 2017 at 10:54 pm #

      “Puerto Rico is not a colony, it is indeed part of the USA and Puerto Ricans are American citizens.”

      What’s your point with this, Joe, and what relevance does it has with the topic being discussed? I am just curious, you know, being a Puerto Rican myself.

      • Alanzo September 18, 2017 at 7:10 am #

        There was a short off-topic discussion about the status of Puerto Rico as a state or territory or “colony” (“colony” was my joke about American Imperialism) that I deleted because it was off-topic.

        We were wondering if you could file for the FOIA request, or if that would make you a terrorist under the Trump Administration.

        (all off topic jokes)

  3. Joe Pendleton September 17, 2017 at 1:13 am #

    The most important thing to consider about Marty’s schtick is tha, like some others , he COMPLETELY misses the whole point of Aftermath. NONE of the points he brings up actually matters in the aspect of LIVING LIFE. Aftermath has ONE ESSENTIAL purpose (there may be lesser connected goals, such as possible reforms or government action) … And that essential purpose is to inform and warn the general public of what is in store for people who become involved in the “church” of scientology. Then they can make an informed decision of whether to join or not. I don’t personally care whether the CoS lasts or not, but I do think people have a right to know that they are deciding to join a totalitarian organization.

    While Marty endlessly picks apart the picayune, the REAL issue is what happened to Brian Sheen and the absolute freaking INSANITY therein.

    • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 9:59 am #

      “And that essential purpose is to inform and warn the general public of what is in store for people who become involved in the “church” of scientology. Then they can make an informed decision of whether to join or not. I don’t personally care whether the CoS lasts or not, but I do think people have a right to know that they are deciding to join a totalitarian organization.”

      Completely agreed. But Marty does provide some good background on this series that people need to know. This isn’t a sit-com like “King of Queens”, this is a show that presents itself as reality and it shows real people in real life situations. There should be many more viewpoints on such a thing than simply Leah’s and Mike’s and the producers of the show. The ramifications for so many peoples’ lives are huge.

      What if the Church was able to create a reality TV series off the videos they make about their critics that had millions of viewers? We would need to question, those, too right?

  4. Dib September 17, 2017 at 5:13 am #

    I am all for being devils advocate. It’s always healthy to question all points of view but lately here on this blog, I feel that there is a similar rabid obsession/persecution of the ASC as it has been called by some as you are complaining about The Aftermath and Ortega doing to Scientology . I am still awaiting your revelation regarding a conversation you had with Marty from one of your first posts. I like to read a variety of blogs regarding Scientology. I have no horse in this race but am finding the narrative here as singular as those that you protest about. Alanzo…how about having good unbiased dialogue about both sides and the holes in their narrative.

    • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 8:42 am #

      There is no revelation to be waiting for about a conversation with Marty and I don’t remember ever promising one, Dib.

      I write about what I’m interested in and what I feel is important right now. If you go back in time on this blog you’ll see all kinds of stuff addressing the holes in the narratives of both sides.

      Lately I’ve come to realize that there is too much hysteria in anti-scientology, and too much cruel rhetoric from the guy who ran OSA for 25 years. He’s willing to lie as an anti-scientologist – just as he was willing to lie as a scientologist to get his “product”.

      The reason to be a critic of scientology is to tell the truth about it, not the other way around. That’s my opinion and that’s what I’m interested in right now.

      • Dib September 17, 2017 at 3:11 pm #

        It’s your blog and you are completely at liberty to express your view and write what you are interested in. Again, I find it interesting to read all sorts of views on this topic, just realising that all views, which can begin as rational analysis, can quickly shift to hysteria.
        As for the Marty comment, when I first found your blog you had commented that you had a conversation with Marty in which he said something to you that led you to question the sincerity or something like that, which you then mentioned you would talk about more, I was merely interested in your analysis of that conversation in light of his new attitude towards some old friends. Yes I have seen your past blogs about issues in Scientology and yes you have written about the holes in Scientology narratives I suppose it’s your current shift of focus onto the anti Scientologists without the balance of also addressing the lies from Marty’s videos that I find interesting in this particular blog piece that led me to comment.

        “Imagine you come upon a house painted brown. What color would you say the house was?”
        “Why brown, of course.”
        “But what if I came upon it from the other side, and found it to be white?”
        “That would be absurd. Who would paint a house two colors?”
        He ignored my question. “You say it’s brown, and I say it’s white. Who’s right?”
        “We’re both right.”
        “Non,” he said. “We’re both wrong. The house isn’t brown or white. It’s both. You and I only see one side. But that doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t exist. To not see the whole is to not see the truth.”
        ― Megan Chance.

        • Alanzo September 17, 2017 at 4:20 pm #

          Excellent quote!.

          As we go through Marty’s videos, we will be pointing out the lies in them, too. Some of the lies and some of the dismissive attitudes he displays to good people are just infuriating. It reminds me of the “hate flow” I would get whenever I had to deal with upper level sea Org members when I was a Scientologist. Marty helped to create that hate flow culture with David Miscavige and Mike Rinder while they ran Scientology.

          I didn’t actually see anything that could be characterized as a lie in this video – did you?

        • Thetaclear September 17, 2017 at 11:08 pm #

          “….I suppose it’s your current shift of focus onto the anti Scientologists without the balance of also addressing the lies from Marty’s videos that I find interesting in this particular blog piece that led me to comment.”

          Dib, or Alanzo for that matter, could you please point out the exact “lies” that Marty tells on his videos, like with quoting him, and showing the time taps of those “lies”? Thank you. In this particular video there is absolutely no evidence of a lie. I am not saying that he is necessarily telling the truth, all I am saying now is that it has not been demonstrated that Marty is lying on this particular video. That he and Rinder allegedly talked with some lawyers from the DOJ does not necessarily imply that there would be records of this if in the initial conversations, those lawyers found no basis for a case.

          At least in Puerto Rico, it works that way. If in the initial interviews no basis for a case if found, then no records of it is kept. The correct thing to do would be to ask a practicing lawyer about this (one who DOESN’T have any opinions regarding Scn either in a positive way or in a negative one).

Clicky