Paul Haggis Provides False Choice on How That Email Ended Up in Church Hands

hacking scientologyYesterday, in the comments section of my blog, I provided the link to a post that Marty Rathbun wrote in December of 2009 about his wordpress blog account being hacked.

That post was written four months after Marty and “collero’s” email exchanges. And if Marty’s blog was hacked, that means the hackers got his password for his wordpress account. And if they got that password, what other passwords did they get?

All you need to read Marty’s encrypted emails is the password to Marty’s hushmail account. And if Paul Haggis was not using encrypted email, or any of the other recipients to that email exchange, then there is no protection of encryption for that email conversation.

Paul Haggis this morning only gave 2 possibilities for how this email ended up in a Church video – either Marty was hacked or Marty handed it over to them.

But that’s wrong – there aren’t just those two possibilities. Paul himself could have been hacked, Jason Beghe could have been hacked (a known, self-confessed technological Luddite who had a probable OSA plant living with him) and any other recipient on that email chain could have been hacked as possibilities, as well.

The Church of Scientology has had a dedicated and well financed team of hackers since at least the time I left around 1999. I knew two of them from that time. One of them was Tim Crowley, a fellow mission staff member from Peoria, brother of Suzanne Crowley, whose specialty was intercepting emails from peoples’ email traffic. Mike Rinder hired him at OSA Int in the early 2000s. Another was Jesus Gimenez, a former Scientology friend of mine from LA who worked directly with former GO honcho Craig Jensen’s hacking unit at Executive Software, who also worked directly with OSA, as Mike Rinder well knows.

Even Mike Rinder and Tony Ortega’s emails have been hacked and the guy who hacked them went to prison, as Tony wrote about here:

On June 25, former Scientology spokesman Mike Rinder and I went public with the information that the two of us had been notified by the US Attorney that we had been victimized in Saldarriaga’s hacking attacks for hire. Besides both being victims of Saldarriaga, Rinder and I both appeared in Alex Gibney’s recent film on Scientology, Going Clear, and we have each experienced harassment we attribute to the church and its private investigators. We pointed out to Judge Sullivan in our “victim impact statements” that the only organization that would want illegal access to our email accounts was Rinder’s former employer. Any other scenario strained credulity, we pointed out.

Hell, I’ve been attempted to be hacked by the Church of Scientology beginning back on Christmas Day 2001, and I must presume, all the way up to now.

Unlike Tony Ortega, and now Paul Haggis it seems, I’m not saying that I KNOW anything about Marty Rathbun and what the hell he is doing. I am simply pointing out that if you are targeted by the Church of Scientology’s sophisticated team of hackers, you have to have expert level knowledge of computer security to be confident that you have not been hacked. And anyone who is an expert at computer security is NEVER confident that they have not been hacked.

No critic of the Church of Scientology that I know is an expert at computer security. And after the false choices that Tony Ortega and Paul Haggis are giving us on this subject – it is clear that they are no experts at computer security, either.

94 thoughts on “Paul Haggis Provides False Choice on How That Email Ended Up in Church Hands”

  1. Ortega wrote:

    “Rathbun decided to make the entire email public on his website, and it included one name of a recipient who was not Rathbun, Haggis, or Beghe.”

    “In other words, Rathbun had just outed one of the disaffected Scientologists that in 2009 he and Haggis and Beghe were trying so hard to keep the church from knowing about.”

    Tony quotes Haggis as saying:

    “He appears to be doing exactly what I warned he would – revealing another friend’s involvement that we all swore to keep secret[.]”

    “He [Marty] personally swore to this person he would never reveal his identity, as did Jason and I. This is a sweet man who never went public and was afraid what would happen if he did, [..] The only thing this person ever asked of us was anonymity. Have a good sleep, Marty.”

    As can be seen in the email Marty posted, the perosn that Haggis is referring to is Bill Dendiu. Contrary to Haggis’ assertions, Dendiu had spoken publicly against Miscavige in the past. According to, Dendiu had told Lawrence Wright about being physically assaulted by Miscavige and of having witnessed Miscavge assault others as well:

    “The list of those who told me they had been physically assaulted by David Miscavige: Mike Rinder, Gale Irwin, Marty Rathbun, Jefferson Hawkins, Tom De Vocht, Mark Fisher, Bruce Hines, Bill Dendiu, Guy White, Marc Headley, and Stefan Castle. Those who said they had witnessed such abuse: John Axel, Marty Rathbun, Janela Webster, Tom De Vocht, Marc Headley, Eric Knutson, Amy Scobee, Dan Koon, Steve Hall, Claire Headley, Mariette Lindstein, John Peeler, Andre Tabayoyan, Vicki Aznaran, Jesse Prince, Mark Fisher, Bill Dendiu, Mike Rinder, David Lingerfelter, Denise (Larry) Brennan, Debbie Cook, and Lana Mitchell. [emphasis added]”

    It may still be true that Rathbun promised Dendiu that he would not reveal his involvement in Rathbun’s communication with Haggis. If so, Rathbun should have redacted Dendiu’s name from the email (unless of course Dendiu gave him permission to do otherwise). With that being said, Haggis’ claim that Dendiu “never went public” is false. He may not have been a prominent a critic like Rinder or Rathbun but he did go public.

    Some might object to me naming Dendiu in this comment but it must be done to correct the public record. Either way Dendiu’s involvement in the Rathbun-Haggis correspondence has already been exposed, you cannot unring the bell.

    • I really appreciate your contribution, DTG. It is not a popular thing you did here, and I admire your courage, intelligence, and intellectual honesty. Thank you very much for this.

      • Thank you for your kinds words. I do want to assume good faith on Haggis’ part. This could be an honest mistake, after all he may not be quite versed on the the more obscure specifics of Scientology criticism. I find it harder to believe that this mistake would escape Tony Ortega though, after all he’s been writing about Scientology every day for the last five years.

        • Yeah. I think both Leah Remini and Paul Haggis are making big mistakes by aligning themselves so strongly and publicly with such an incredibly biased guy like Tony Ortega. Leah uses Tony’s quote about Scientologists believing in pedophilia (which she knows is not true), and uses Tony Ortega’s attacks on a mother whose daughter committed suicide on her show – to millions of people.

          This is a mistake. And I can not know their reasoning for this. I just have to assume they are big boys and girls and they made their choices to align themselves with him, and to use his emotional manipulation of people, and his cruelty to public Scientologists who are not abusers, knowingly and willingly.

          • I think the reasoning is they want the CoS disbanded, ceasing to exist or function as an organization. Two years ago when I first started reading the scn blogs Mike would concede that some people got some benefits from the subject itself. I don’t know if he changed his mind on that.

          • Leah Remini’s statement about “Scientologists believing in pedophilia” based on an out of context sentence from Dianetics was really disingenuous at best. Disgusting and hypocritical at worst.

            How many remember that Leah very publicly announced her re-confirmation in the Catholic Church a few years ago? Here old sidekick Kevin James sang her praises because he is a Catholic himself. I believe it was the spring of 2015. Maybe 2016. Also her young daughter was confirmed and baptized in the Catholic Church. This was also made public with a picture of her daughter in her confirmation dress. Mama was so proud.

            So, Ms. Remini, which Church has had a problem with pedophilia exactly? Not only that, but a decades effort in covering it up from the very top, as in the Vatican. And, Ms. Remini, how many young lives were destroyed by the voracious and predatory Catholic priesthood? How many of these kids ended up committing suicide either as teens or young adults due to the criminal abuses by this…ahem….church?

            Oh my how selective we are with our outrages Ms. Remini. How selective we are in choosing which church to go after. Indeed!

            But I suppose Leah’s daughter will be fine since the priests tend to prefer young boys.

    • Remember that they were talking about a time before Lawrence Wright hit the scene. It could very well be true that Bill did not want to be exposed – at that time.

      Personally, whether Marty or Paul or anyone else got hacked is a moot point. Marty’s response to Haggis and Tony O is very telling. Marty appears to be spiralling out of control. It’s not so much what he says, its how he says it. He’s gone from asshole to cunt, completely skipping prick.

      Whether or not there’s any “truth” buried in Marty’s words, who the fuck knows? And frankly, I don’t much care for Marty – as a person. I think he’s an arrogant blowhard, who chose to rip others up, and lie (either in the past or present). He’s been through the Scn mindfuck machine, and for a while was an operator. Now he just appears to be mentally and emotionally broken.

      This is what happens to a Scientology Warrior when you take Scientology away.

    • thanks for this info. I knew Bill Dendiu and even shared one of his stories I heard 2nd hand, once on ARS or Clambake, but not on the violence. But Bill’s been talked about, I talked about his time, he was an hilarious staff member, great jokester, great sense of humor, and a funny and good basketball player with a bad knee back then.

  2. I am going to be a pain in the ass and point out that Marty had no problem letting people know he had been hacked back then. It makes no logical sense that he wouldnt do so now. This did not happen in a vacuum taken with what he has been doing for the last several months i don’t think you can give him the benefit of the doubt.

    • In my 18 years as a critic of Scientology, I’ve seen too many critics being eaten alive by other critics. When there are blatant inaccuracies and untruths being peddled for everyone to get hysterical about and start chomping on another critic’s leg, I feel it is important to at least point them out.

      I can completely understand your, and everyone else’s, not wanting to give Marty the benefit of the doubt. But I know that Tony Ortega has been on a dedicated campaign to discredit Marty Rathbun since at least a few weeks before his wife’s withdrawal from her lawsuit. He even tried to recruit me in that discrediting campaign through Chris Shelton. Tony Ortega has been using all kinds of specious reasoning and whispering campaigns to get this done – as is his heavily biased pattern.

      I’m not going to let his intentional hysteria-making spread unquestioned and unopposed – especially where it is so blatant as it is this morning.

  3. Just to put Paul Haggis’ false choice in perspective, here is a list of Fortune 500 companies who have been successfully hacked in the years 2011 to 2014. Ask yourself how much money all these banks, phone companies and huge retail chain stores spend on cybersecurity every year.

    Now look at how much you spend on cybersecurity every year. Do you think that if the Church of Scientology wants to target you as a critic of theirs, they will not hack your computer as the very first thing they do?

    What’s amazing to me is how little Mike Rinder has ever talked about the Church’s hacking capabilities to protect his fellow critics.


    • So now Marty is calling Tony ortega a child sex trafficker when he was friendly with him himself at least in a professional level. ? I don’t know what is happening on his blog he has either lost his mind or you are right Alanzo and he has been hacked.

      • I would not go so far as to call Tony Ortega “Backpage Tony”, but Tony Ortega did write this defense of sex trafficking by at the Village Voice in 2011. Again, this is an article by Tony Ortega himself defending, and condoning, making money off of sex trafficking at the Village Voice while he was the Senior Editor there.

        Given Tony Ortega’s, and now Leah Remini’s, use of a single, obscure quote to accuse Scientologists of believing in pedophilia, I do find this article by Tony Ortega to be quite the irony.

        • Alanzo I am surprised at your description of that article you seem to be a truth teller. That article from Tony is arguing about the cited number of children being trafficked. It was not an article in defense of child trafficking.

          • No – it was not in defense of child sex trafficking at all.

            But it was in defense of sex trafficking of adults – very much so.

            No 18 year old girl or boy chooses a career as a prostitute. Nor any other adult either. What Tony Ortega was defending his company making money on was pretty freaking disgusting, not to mention illegal.

        • This is not a defense of sex trafficking. It is a defense of “back page” or Craig’s List adult ads. Ortega notes that staff report suspicious ads, as they should.
          Alanzo, Thank you for posting the link. I have finally read the actual article instead of the distortions promoted by Oracle.
          TO comes across well in this.

          • Eileen – I lived in NYC for a year in 1970 and read the Village Voice a few times. It was a source of amusement for me to read the “personal” columns. I was surprised at how many “unusual” fetishes and alternative lifestyles there are. “Have whip – will travel” As they say, if it’s between consenting adults . . . lol

            An interesting thing I found about living in NYC is that I could look out of my high rise apartment window and always know that someone else out there in that sea of humanity had a similar mind.

            • Hi Richard,
              I also lived in NYC in 1970! 118th street and Amsterdam, near the Columbia campus. Young and foolish, that town is too much for me. I left for the relative tameness of Boston.
              When I was in high school we used to go to a dance club called “the Cheetah” I think it was in the Village area.
              Hi Alanzo, sorry for the trip down memory lane, I know we should be focused on fighting Anti- Scientology, or Scientology, or Hatha Yoga, or something.

              • Eileen – Small world! I also lived on the Upper West Side and shared an apartment with two Columbia graduate students. I didn’t really socialize with them but I hooked up with some acting students from another city college. I went to some parties with them and enjoyed smoking a few “doobies” with them and some of their professors. My anti establishment days.

                I agree with you about the article Tony wrote. I read something similar to that before. That article will never appear on Marty’s blog, that’s for sure – ha ha

  4. Alonzo, I just ordered the book by the former CIA analyst that you recommended a couple of days ago, which sounds like an interesting and useful read. On that subject, if you want to be serious about critical thinking, I’d like to see more detailed analysis, such as going through Rathbun’s posts point-by-point and weighing each, rather than picking a few points to speculate about.

    I’m not going to attempt a thorough analysis here, just suggest a few things for consideration. You are right to point out that the e-mail which Scientology excerpted and Haggis referred to, could have come from other parties; but that still leaves the curious fact that Rathbun was quickly able to come up with a scan of the full e-mail, which had apparently been previously printed out and hand-annotated, as well as his strange willingness to publicly publish the full piece including the unredacted address of the third party. And that doesn’t explain how Scientology attorneys got the e-mail between Rathbun and Lemberger – which I thought was an issue that really bothered you. As a point of quick analysis, the only common party in both incidents of e-mails falling into Scientology’s hands, is Rathbun, who rather oddly refuses to answer questions about the incidents; if Haggis was taking both into account, though failing to state so clearly, it’s much less of a “false” choice when there are no plausible sources other than Rathbun.

    • It does bother me, and it is at the top of my mind at all times. I have now asked Marty Rathbun 4 times to provide any information on this at all. And he has not.

      As a point of quick analysis, the only common party in both incidents of e-mails falling into Scientology’s hands, is Rathbun

      Actually no. Dani Lemberger could have been hacked, as well, and anyone who Dani and Marty have been communicating with, such as C/Ses in their Indie days, etc.

      People are way too quick to take up what Tony Ortega writes without really thinking about it.

      Also, I’d love to hear what you think about that book. I’d love to do some hypothesis testing with someone on this blog. I think that kind of structural analysis would be very helpful to everyone in our community.

      • Did you really mean “Actually no” in response to my writing “the only common party in both incidents of e-mails falling into Scientology’s hands, is Rathbun”? I don’t think there’s anyone else, is there?

        Yes, it’s possible that multiple other parties were hacked. But, on the topic of Occam’s Razor, that’s the more complex (or multiple) assumption. And it also requires assuming that Rathbun, who could settle the matter by stating what he knows of what happened, for some other odd reason other than a compunction about lying (and possibly being caught at it), refuses to do so; and that Scientology’s attorney lied in court when he said that Rathbun gave him the Lemberger email.

        Also, what do you think of Rathbun publishing the entire private Haggis e-mail including the unredacted identifying address of the third party? (he may have spoken to Wright, but I don’t know that he’s publicy admitted his contacts with Haggis, and being identified with the “conspirators” could still potentially have consequences for him)

        I’ll let you know after I get the book. The reviews said it was a little dense, so I’m asking a couple of friends who are former spooks if they have any other recommendations.

        • Tony asserts that it is a career-ending offense in Israel if you get caught lying in court about where you got a piece of evidence in a civil case. But he seems to have conveniently forgotten that we are talking about an Attorney who works for the Church of Scientology. How many times have we seen them lie in court? Here Tony Ortega wants us to take the word of a Church attorney.

          Irony of ironies.

          Unlike Tony Ortega, I do not pretend to know how that email ended up in court with a Church attorney. I do not know that yet. I would like to find out.

          That Marty does not answer could be a Colonel Nathan Jessup move on his part, it could be what he believes to be a deft use of LRH’s Rhythm HCOB from the Art Series, or it could be that he is guilty as sin and does not want to admit it. I don’t know which it is, and neither does anyone else but Marty.

          • Yes, it’s plausible, though doesn’t it fail Occam’s Razor?

            And what about the other two assumptions I referred to?

            Even if something is plausible, it’s down to a pretty low probability if it requires that many assumptions, arguably a raw 12.5% assigning equal probability (and plausibility) and only dual (two choice/possibility, rather than multiple) at each level. Once I’ve had time to work through the book, perhaps we can view things like this through an analysis tree that we’re both familiar with.

          • Amazing, Alanzo, how far and wide you will twist logic in an attempt to….What?
            Practicing that logic path you could actually state that Hitler was a saint, Gandhi a monster, and jack the ripper a research surgeon… 🙂
            Remember the joke/story which ends: “If it looks like shit, feels like shit, smells like shit, tastes like shit, for God’s sake, don’t swallow, IT IS shit!
            Speculating on the mails being hacked is not relevant, as others mentioned, but you refuse to see the obvious.
            The Lawyers in Lemberger’s case were from highly respected LOCAL top law firms (as well as church lawyers who came over.) They will NOT present in court illegally obtained documents, or lie on record!! Especially when it can be immediately exposed by the innocent and negatively affected party: Marty.
            The fact that settles this issue beyond any reasonable doubt is Marty’s total silence, the reason for which you refuse to accept!
            Dani Lemberger, right after the “mail in court incident” wrote Marty a mail. Really nice and friendly mail, I saw it. Asking how he was, the wife and kid, and really saying Hello.
            Then, told him about what happened in court, and asked him if he knows anything about it, or has any explanation. That was Dani Lemberger, not Tony Ortega.
            NO REPLY! nothing. Why? Let’s say the CoS hacked him, twice now, and used this openly, stating it (the recent one) was given to them by Marty, by that badly slandering his name and reputation for the whole world to see. He could have simply expose this and set the record right. and ALSO EXPOSE A CRUEL LIE, misrepresentation AND damaging offence.
            Nope! Instead he spends hours “exposing” every small or big “lie” and “misrepresentations” of others, who happen to oppose the CoS, and with such great detail!! No silence here.
            Your reasoning on this (going back to the joke/story at start of my comment) actually says:
            Ok, I had no ‘real proof’ so I ate it. God, it tastes bad, feels wrong! So I have asked 4 times the guy who dropped it: “What is it, man??”. He has not replied.
            So I still don’t know what it is reeeaaaly… Well my friend, what else can be said but: Bon Appetite!

            • Good that you presented your argument. Bad that it featured me eating shit. Maybe you can omit that kind of insult and just make your point next time. Eh, Ani meshuga Habibi?

              You make a good point here, Marty’s silence on all this is huge.

              But Paul Haggis’ did provide a false choice, Church attorneys do lie, and Dani Lemberger did talk about murdering David Miscavige – not in session – but in an email.

              Dani Lemberger is Israeli militarily trained, and is religiously, even zealously, motivated. His business (and in Israel it is a business) even had to break off from Miscavige’s organization.

              That shows means and clear motivation. All that’s missing is opportunity. Dani travels to the US all the time, right?

              If Marty was hacked, then he knew the Church had this email. And that means if they had this email, they could have him charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

              Did you ever consider that?

              What legal responsibility does a mental practitioner (and remember indies have no religious protections) have to notify others when one of their clients voices the intent to commit a crime like murder? Not even in session but in a freaking email?

              Why couldn’t Dani’s email be seen as an attempt to get Marty arrested by manufacturing a felony? That is 100% standard L Ron Hubbard, is it not?

              While we’ve been speculating on this for months now – why hasn’t anyone speculated with that very basic scenario as to Marty’s motivations – if he did send them that email? Isn’t that scenario just as likely, or more, than “Marty works for Dave now”?

              • “Good that you presented your argument. Bad that it featured me eating shit”
                It was a Metaphor Al, just a metaphor. But I apologize if came as an insult. Beseder?
                “Dani Lemberger did talk about murdering David Miscavige – not in session – but in an email”.
                No Alanzo, never happened! Dani wrote something like: “I feel like killing him”, describing how upset he was with what DM was doing. Again, it was a METAPHOR! (have you skipped these literature lessons in school..? 🙂 )
                In Hebrew we say this 5-6 times a day about nasty people. No murders intended, committed or charged.
                If I write to you that our Israeli President said something horrible, “fuck him!” – there is no intercourse intent here or a rape plot…!
                And Dani could not hurt a fly even if he wished.

                But Alanzo, being a person of wide and wild imagination, I can give you better speculations on why Marty is clean and ethical on the emails (and other issues..).
                Here’s one which might actually turn out to be true:
                Marty, after trying for years to bring down DM with no success, decided to infiltrate the CoS as a “double agent” and continue the work and getting incriminating evidence from inside. For that he needs to feign being totally dedicated again, delivering blows to CoS enemies and so on. It actually could be true! I give this a 3% probability. And if that is not the case – I hereby suggest it to Marty… !! 🙂 THAT will be a total redemption.
                This is the only speculation that has ANY truth probability besides Marty is working for the CoS again. IMHO
                I am afraid all others that I heard are too weak to even consider. But Alanzo, here’s a question:
                Why not consider that Marty is working again with the CoS? With all that overwhelming evidence isn’t this the most probable?

                • Ken. Beseder.

                  Dani’s email is public record now. Can you get a copy of it?

                  Also, since you know Hebrew, can you get a copy of the relevant sections of the court documents and give us a rough translation of the process by which the email was entered into evidence, and what exactly the Church’s attorney said when describing how he obtained it?

                  If you can get that information and present it factually – not in support of your pet hypothesis that Marty is working for DM – but simply factually – I will be able to provide hypothesis testing on the 3 main hypotheses on Marty Rathbun:

                  The 3 main hypotheses:

                  1. Marty is working for the Church of Scientology
                  2. Marty is done with both Scientology and Anti-Scientology
                  3. Marty became a double agent in order to bring down DM

                  Can you provide that information objectively, Hemi?

                  Does anyone else have any other hypotheses that should be considered?

  5. > And if they got that password, what other passwords did they get?

    That’s a stretch, Alanzo. Someone hacking into one site is unlikely to find passwords from another. Think of Occam’s Razor — the simplest explanation is generally the right one. Marty made some kind of deal with the Co$ and he’s now working on Davey’s side. It’s the only explanation that fits all the data.

    • Another way of expressing Occam’s Razor is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

      Think of all the assumptions required in the hypothesis “Marty went back to working for David Miscavige” vs. the assumptions required for the hypothesis “Marty is sick of both Scientology and Anti-Scientology and he is writing about that.”

      Which of these require fewer assumptions?

      That’s the correct use of Occam’s Razor here.

      • Or Marty has orchestrated a shit storm. For what purpose I do not know.

        It’s one thing to analytically dissect an episode of the Aftermath or a blog posting, and highlight inaccuracies, flaws or questionable morality. This is not what Marty is doing. To me the main thrust of his videos is to enturbulate and de-stabilize, and to get others to turn on others. His job is to shit on people – publically.

        If Marty’s true intent was to expose the hypocrisy of the ASC, where’s the verifiable evidence? How many times does Marty say “I was there – never happened”? How about a little corroboration? Or we’re supposed to take your word for it? Marty’s “data” is whatever comes out of his mouth unfiltered.

        Until Marty starts to explain the contradictions of his own statements over the years, his credibility as a legitimate source of factual data is practically nil.

      • Honesly, I think the idea of Marty going back to the Church requires the fewest explanations. First, it’s what he’s familiar with. It represents the height of his personal power and a the depth of disruption in his life. Second, let’s not forget that Scientology turned all of their energies on Marty and his family. Remember what Bob Minton said when he gave up: “It was like the Terminator was after you.” And Marty’s own exchange with the IRS’ Goldberg: “We can really turn it off?” Marty: “Like a faucet.”

        And third, there’s the fact that the whole “Backpage Tony” rant has been posted word-for-word by commenters (with different names) on Marty’s site:

        I imagine that accepting that Marty has gone back to work for Scientology (or at least caved into them) has to be as difficult for his supporters as it was/is for Scientologists to turn their back on Scientology. But don’t you see that it’s all the same thing, Alonzo? From the outside, it’s obvious; from the inside, not so much.

        It’s no surprise that Marty Rathbun might have an issue with Tony Ortega. We know he’s got a temper. But there’s a definite change in tone, and it’s obvious that he is now attacking people on the Church’s behalf, using the Church’s own techniques. the Church’s own video production facilities, and the Church’s own words.

        It’s obvious, that is, except to those who do not want to see it.

        I’m sorry for the disappointment you will face here, Alonzo, but this is what it is.

        • But there’s a definite change in tone, and it’s obvious that he is now attacking people on the Church’s behalf, using the Church’s own techniques. the Church’s own video production facilities, and the Church’s own words.

          It’s obvious, that is, except to those who do not want to see it.

          I’m sorry for the disappointment you will face here, Alonzo, but this is what it is.

          Do you know what assumptions are?

          They are “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.”

          As a critical thinking exercise, can you count the number of assumptions you’ve written in just that small quote of yours above?

          • “Do you know what assumptions are?”

            Yes, and I know what happens to you and me when I make them. 🙂 Again, one has to go where the evidence takes one. If it walks like Miscavige and quacks like Miscavige…

              • No, that’s the problem — Marty won’t say what’s what. (And I respect his right to privacy.) All we can do is speculate. Eight years of his writing have given us an excellent view into Marty’s mind, and what’s happening now is a huge break in the pattern. We can only guess… but my guess is that Marty is working with the Church again. Perhaps some day we’ll find out for sure.

                • But there have been other breaks in the pattern of Marty’s mind that were all understandable to people:

                  1. He went from Scientologist to Indepdendent
                  2. He went from Independent to critic
                  3. Then he went from critic/anti to….

                  And here’s where I understand it differently than most undies. There is a step beyond critic/antic – it’s post-ex. It’s done with both. No longer at war with Scientology and very much done with the tribalism and cruelty of the Anti-Scientologista.

                  The next step after Ex/critic anti is NOT “back into the Church working for Dave.” It is done with all this crap.

                  That’s where Marty is. It’s plain as day to me. It’s all in everything he writes.

        • I think its unlikely that Marty is “working for the church”. A more plausible explanation is that Marty is scorned. He still considers himself to be the authority on all things Scn. In his day, he was formidable as a critic of the church. Others, less knowledgeable on the subject, have gone on to achieve some type of success or notoriety by writing books, producing videos, etc. And I think he feels resentful and perhaps vengeful. So, much so that he has to make them ALL wrong. They’re all crooks and liars and con men.

          So, he doesn’t have to be working for the church. He could simply be getting even.

          • “He could simply be getting even.”

            He could be. But why would he suddenly be producing videos with the Church’s signature style and writing things on his blog that read like they were written by the Church? “Can’t lie straight in bed” — That one line may be the biggest giveaway. Marty tends to open with something broad and passive — “It will be found, when one studies a subject, that…” (Not a direct quote, just a made up example.) Church pubs and videos start with a direct insult. “Marty and his posse of lunatics are at it again.” I’m a writer by trade, and that one line is so far out of Marty’s sense of style that it sticks out like a neon sign. It’s not how Marty writes. If the Church didn’t write the article, they edited it — or Marty is writing using their style guide.

            • It could very well be that Marty is sharing information with the church. But not because he’s “rejoined the church” or “is working for OSA”. It would be because it furthers his aim to inflict harm on the ASC.

              Watch his videos again, it is a personal vendetta, character assination. Hell, he shits on people when he doesn’t have to.

        • You don’t mention the two BIGGEST things you have to “not-is” in order to make the Marty+Miscavige=friends-now assumption:

          1) the existence of Monique Rathbun. You have to argue that Monique, a never in, is either (a) now a dedicated Scieno; (b) willing to drop the Court case at her husband’s behest for some secret reason, like she’s “brainwashed”.

          2) the fact that all the CoS’ slander about Marty is STILL ONLINE, and also all Marty’s exposes of Miscavige are STILL ONLINE.

          Note that I don’t exclude the idea that CoS and Marty are helping each other secretly on the downlow, on an “enemy’s enemy” basis.

          • “2) the fact that all the CoS’ slander about Marty is STILL ONLINE, and also all Marty’s exposes of Miscavige are STILL ONLINE.”

            The former I can understand, but you are correct, the latter does not fit the pattern — although Marty did used to accuse “OSA trolls” (I was once labeled one of those, even though I wasn’t involved with the Church) of using subtly anti-Miscavige language to give themselves legitimacy. Trashing Hubbard is, I think, the real litmus test. As far as I can tell, no Scientologist will write “Hubbard was a con man and a lying tub of shit.” But maybe I’m wrong.

            • I get accused of being a Scientologist, even a “vile Scientologist” all the time now and I have a whole blog full of statements like that.

              The Anti-Scientologista are not generally very careful with the relationship between their rhetoric and the facts. They shoot from the hip with anything that sounds sinister and will tear their enemies down. Like, I suppose Paul Haggis accusing Marty of ‘outing’ an Ex-Scientologist – even though the guy wrote a book about leaving Scientology 3 years ago – and which Paul Haggis endorsed.

              I looked through the pages which Amazon has for review and I did not see the word Scientology, although Terri Gamboa and Janis Grady are thanked in the foreword. So maybe that’s why Haggis thinks this guy was not already outed?

              But DigThatGroove and Marty both have shown that he already was ‘outed’ years ago.

              So what, exactly, are Tony and Paul going on about – eh hosers?

  6. In general terms, Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply to Scientology-related online shenanigans. The workings of OSA have succeeded in implanting rampant paranoia in the ASC. Hence Dan Koon thinking that someone else is writing Marty’s latest blog posts for him. The wildest speculations and leaps of logic are accepted if they accord with people’s prior prejudices (either “Marty disagrees with Tony Ortega therefore he is FILTHY TRAITOR”, or “Marty has been REPLACED BY A CLONE because OSA can do that kind of thing).

    • LOL! Whatever explains away the distress of information that challenges your existing beliefs.

      Cognitive dissonance reduction techniques:

      They’re not just for Scientologists any more!

  7. As a woman of the female persuasion, I must once again put something on the record which seems to be neglected: the lawsuit was filed by Monique Rathbun. She must have agreed to its dismissal. Any argument that “Marty works for Miscavige now” must either argue that Monique does as well; or that Monique is totally dominated by Marty to the extent that she would throw away what Backpage Tony swears was a slam-dunk seven-figure payout. The first is extremely unlikely; the second is sexist as all get-out.

    • Yes – every accusation that Marty Rathbun stole money from his attorneys by secretly being paid off by Scientology is also saying Monique did this, too. In fact, since it was her lawsuit – it is actually more of a slander against Monique than it is against Marty.

      Marty is easy to accuse. Why hasn’t Tony been accusing Monique of stealing from Ray Jeffrey all this time?

      And why have none of the Undies been accusing her, as well?

      The emotional manipulation of those people by Tony Ortega is astounding.

      • I raised this question on the “SPs ‘r Us” Facebook group a little while back. The consensus seemed to be that “Monique is obviously now a Scieno now, we hate her too”. But I doubt Ortega will have the stones to make that accusation openly. Dogpiling on a woman of African-American heritage isn’t quite such a slam-dunk make-yourself-popular move as hounding an irascible white gentleman whom most of the ASC never liked or trusted while he was one of them.

    • “the lawsuit was filed by Monique Rathbun.” I think that was discussed by the lawyers he fired — they filed in Monique’s name, but it was all Marty. Honestly, that’s what I figured all along. A smart technique.

      • So what you’re saying is that Monique has nothing to do with all this, that she didn’t need to be consulted before a lawsuit filed in her name was dropped? After she was interviewed in _Going Clear_ and stood beside Marty all through the Squirrel Busters stuff? I have to repeat: to argue that Marty has “switched” you have to argue that never-in, daughter-of-a-psych Monique has either also switched, or is completely cool with her husband using her name to pursue some feud or fraud or something. The latter is – I repeat – an essentially sexist notion that she is a pawn of her husband.

  8. How can you “out” someone who published a book 3 years ago about leaving Scientology? And for which Paul Haggis wrote the promotional blurb on the back cover?

    See here at Amazon: My Walk Home: A Story of Miracles and Spiritual Healing

    Tony Ortega’s Headline this morning:

    “Paul Haggis: Rathbun does what I feared, and outs ex-Scientologist we vowed to keep secret”

    is the most inaccurate and manipulative thing Tony Ortega may have ever written. This is on a par with the time when Jon Attack “misremembered’ in his review that Janis Grady said in her book that LRH had molested her, when she never said anything like that in the book and Tony had to correct his review for him.


    • Hi Alanzo,
      There have been some pertinent points made by you and other commentators, no one except Marty himself knows why the lawsuit was dropped and how the emails came to be in the hands of Scientology, however I need to ask if you have read Bill’s book? From my brief research and read of a few pages it appears it’s about his journey of healing from a stroke not leaving Scientology. I will stand corrected if you have any further information or have read the entire book. Maybe the point that Paul Haggis was making is that Bill did not want to be outed in regards to his association with Rathbun, Haggis and Beghe. Presumably one can be an ex scientologist and be left relatively little harassment but to be associated with certain ex members may create an unwanted level of interest from the “church”.
      Just my thoughts.

      • Haven’t read his book, so yes, I can see that it might very well have not been about Scientology. Did you read it?

        But he HAS already been “outed” as DigThatGroove has shown and so has Marty. In fact he has outed himself.

        • No, not the entire book, however after reading the comments here as well as all the bunker comments regarding Marty’s traitorous act of outing him, I was compelled to do a little of my own research, I only found a few pages and synopsis as well as a few discussions about the book. I was interested in the content but in my research I couldn’t find a reference to leaving Scientology, only Christianity and Bowen therapy as a means of healing and form of therapy after a devestating stroke. Hence my question to you. I think Dig that groove made some good points in their comment.

          • No, not the entire book, however after reading the comments here as well as all the bunker comments regarding Marty’s traitorous act of outing him

            How, exactly was it a “traitorous” act of outing him? He was already outed. Marty did not out him. We have established that.

            What appeared today on Tony’s blog was not factual. It was false.

            Can you see that?

            And you do remember that just yesterday Paul Haggis accused Marty of giving that email to the Church. And so if Paul Haggis believes what he said yesterday, then again, he was already outed and Marty releasing the whole email on yesterday’s blog post did not out him.


            Could it be that Paul Haggis just wanted to distract everyone from the dishonest machinations that the full email revealed about him?

            Or are we kittens just supposed to chase the little red dot Tony Ortega is pointing at the wall again?

            • I should have written “traitorous” . I have no opinion on that based on the little facts I have. My first comment is about as much as I am willing to write. This subject and any difference of opinion appears to incite some very emotional responses. I appreciate all views and opinions and can see validity in many of them. As I said earlier, there have been some good points made here. I am not interested in engaging in a debate about Tony Ortega. I was interested in your comment, researched and had a genuine question for you. You generally provide a safe, respectful forum for comments which is why I asked. I don’t normally comment on blogs.

              • All right. I hope I didn’t challenge you too hard. I can do that sometimes.

                It’s just that the beliefs that Tony Ortega has instilled in his followers are very persistent – even in the face of clear factual evidence that they are wrong.

              • But that was Paul Haggis’ whole point. Being outed to the Church was the thing that Tony wrote that Haggis feared, and which they swore would never be done. Until, of course, he did it himself as part of Larry Wright’s book “Going Clear”.

                But I can see your point. I really don’t want to defend Marty’s actions, any of them, too hard. Because really, you never really know where this guy’s been, or what he’s going to do next.

                If he would simply be more responsive to the very legitimate questions people have, and address the huge outpoints that he continually generates for himself every once in a while, I think he would have a lot more people who could afford to be his friends and supporters.

                I think he believes that people should simply have faith in him. But that is a very unrealistic belief for Marty Rathbun to have.

        • In reply to you Alanzo, I have not read the book, but because the book is available on Amazon, the link you provided,

          why one can take a look inside the book to read a little about it. And in doing so I found the book is dedicated to lots of people and of note are Paul and Janis Grady, Fernando and Terri Gamboa. I don’t recognize the other names and have not researched their names as far as connection to scientology.

          Just interesting. But no matter to me in all the Marty drama, no clears or OT’s is the bottom line, Gib’s Axiom 1, or Shakespeare Much ado about nothing. LOL

          • Thanks for taking time out of your vacation to remind us, once again, that there are no clears or OTs in Scientology – as defined by L Ron Hubbard!

            And no, that last part was NOT an attempt to get something past you! As defined by L Ron Hubbard or by another definition, there are no Clears or OTs in Scientology or in any other religious, spiritual, or political pursuit.

            By all available evidence, humans remain humans no matter what you do to them!

              • You do know that you have never, ever, received even once any resistance from me on that idea. In fact I’ve always been very supportive of it and even have gone on crusades of my own trying to get people to see the importance of that idea.

                • yes I know and why I said thanks. Allow me to continue

                  The Hubbard machine known as scientology is a perpetual machine. It’s org board, it’s send letters out, mag’s out, constant promo, and now the internet. And even Hubbard said or approved on Indie’s, back in the early days.

                  I wondered if all the ex’s, critics, blogs, everything against scientology,

                  if they all stopped communicating about hubbard and/or scientology, what would happen?

                  I mean Complete silence by those opposed, imagine that if all critics, blogs, people against scientology just stopped communicating, like now.

                  Well, to me, the machine Hubbard set-up would continue.

                  Is that the truth?

                • Scientology without counter intention is basically what it was before the internet, a few books and exposes here and there. I wasn’t studious enough to go to the library first.

                • Mr. Hubbard said he had done lots of studying of philosophy, religion and psychology and had synthesized everything for me. Why bother reading a bunch of books!? I learned some things and emerged undamaged. Others were less fortunate.

                  PS Alanzo – That was just an off topic comment in case you have any never-in lurkers. They always question how anyone could be so foolish as to join scn and that was my excuse – laughter

    • Great find, Allen.

      Okay, so it’s apparent Paul and Tony O have been doing a little hanky-panky with the truth. Why do it at all? Why go after Marty? Marty’s videos are seen by a pretty small group. I know Tony O has had a hard-on for Marty for a while. But, what is Paul’s excuse?

  9. Dear Alanzo,
    I always presumed I could be hacked, bugged, etc, and not worry about it, but just change your communication style so that anything you say, is public record, 24/7, in your life. One can just expect everything one says or does, will rebound and cause reverberations and ramifications, and be willing to deal with your mistakes.
    Admit and correct your mistakes, try make up for your damage.
    I didn’t know that you were intimately knew of Scientology’s history of hacking like your wrote above.
    thanks for that info.

    • Hey Chuck! Good to see you here.

      Yeah. It’s when I walked into my downtown office on Christmas day in 2001 to pick up something and saw my computer ON, after I’d turned it off to go home for Xmas, and downloading something. That’s when I really woke up to all this, and started to realize what was going on. Then I had a few short communications from my friend Jesus G that confirmed they were attempting to hack me.

      I’ve actually been writing about it alot over the years but few critics really think about it. Which has been all good for DM.

  10. Honestly, I don’t get it.
    And at the end I ‘m not interested to really understand it as in life I don’t care about senseless discussions and concentrate on construtivness.

    People that had such high ideals, and wanted to help mankind degenerate in childish discussions with nearly as fanatic energy they had when they wanted to help mankind, about who is telling the truth,,who is lying or whois a bad apple etc.
    We all were to a certain degree offenders and victims. So what ?
    It seems to me that the game about Money, Power and control over People is still played outside the Church. The same People that were power Players are continuing their games just on another level, outside the church. Poor souls !

    It seems there never was any real Intention to help, but just to sell hope and gain Power and Money.

    I’ll never understand that people are disconnecting from their Family. This is only possible where there wasn’t a real Family in the first place. If any kid would disconnect from me, the only reaction would be “What did I do wrong ? How did I fail in teaching real love ? and I would accept it as a decison from that Person, even if she was put under duress by an E.O., while finally the Person itself did disconnect. Why blaming others for it ?

    Why not use this energy to build a sane Society and educate People as millions of others do ?

    End of Rant. A good dinner is waiting for me!

    • Yes it is evidence. But it is highly disputable evidence.

      How come no one ever says it’s “the Church of Scientology” lawyer?

      When it has to do with evidence against Marty Rathbun, or someone else we don’t like, it’s the “Israeli Lawyer”.

      But if it is against some we like, it’s “the Scientology lawyer”?

      We’ve seen Scientologys’ lawyers lie all the time in court – and on much more serious matters than this. Why do we assume this Scientologist lawyer is not lying in this case? Muffins was in the court room that day. What if she just told him “Marty gave it to me, therefore he gave it to you.”

      Why couldn’t he have gotten a signed affidavit from Marty? Or a quick video? Or best yet, have Marty state under oath “I gave this email to this attorney?”

      • Interesting point, I wasn’t thinking of him as a Scientology lawyer. Maybe he would lie.
        Most lawyers I know would gladly lie for a client (or “misdirect” would call it). I don’t know any who would make a direct lie to a judge, the FBI, or Congress.
        PS your distinction about how people refer to lawyers when they like or dont like them cuts a little too fine for me.

  11. Hacking might be the reason Marty switched his blog from dot wordpress to dot blog. Who knows. He might be making a living from donations to his blog from wealthy scn-ists. “Mr. Rathbun is defending my religion so I support him.”

    • Members of the IAS “Platinum Victorious Club” certainly don’t isolate themselves from the internet. Their acquaintances and business associates would be aware of public criticism of Scn. Club members would have counters such as “That was all in the past and Scientology has reformed.”

      Marty and Monique recently started an LLC, Limited Liability Corporation. A fresh start?

        • I believe I saw it on ESMB. The corporation was named so I’ll take it as public record.

          For months Marty has been countering the most media worthy criticisms of the CoS. A corporation which sells books and operates an internet website and accepts contributions would be legitimate income, I would assume. No more harassment from the CoS. Ray Jeffries would need to prove collusion with the CoS to get at the LLC’s income.

          Monique “winning” against the CoS is a joke. It would have been tied up in the courts for YEARS before anyone got any money.

          All just speculation on what has occurred – stirring the pot.

          • Richard wrote:

            Can you provide a link?

            “Monique “winning” against the CoS is a joke. It would have been tied up in the courts for YEARS before anyone got any money.

            Yes, Tony Ortega cherry picks, and even makes up information as above, in order to prop up the hypotheses he wants people to accept – especially if those theories are part of one of his discrediting campaigns against other Scientology critics.

            I have a post coming out tomorrow on another “kingmaker” move which Ortega has used in an attempt to discredit another critic of Scientology – the Angry Gay Pope.

            Let’s recount the critics of Scientology that Ortega has tried to discredit and bury:

            The Oracle
            Media Lush
            Carmen Llewellyn
            Virginia and Mike McClaughry
            Marty and Monique Rathbun
            Angry Gay Pope

            Have I missed anyone?

            If anyone feels they have been silenced by Tony Ortega, or any other property controlled by the Anti-Scientology Mafia Network, please contact me. I am open to providing you a platform here where you can be heard.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.