The Unquestioning Arrogance of Anti-Cult Movement Ideologues

Tony OrtegaFunctionally, an ideologue is a person who never questions the assumptions of the ideology that he has adopted.

An ideologue is so certain of the ideology he has adopted, and the rightness of how he sees the world, that he can sneer at people, knowing how superior he is.

It is a lazy way to go through life, intellectually, but if you surround yourself with people who also never question their assumptions either, it’s easier to live that way.

Usually, in the Cult/AntiCult war, the term “ideologue” is only applied to cult members, and those fighting the ‘good fight’ on the antiCult side are never considered for it.

But there are a few very good examples of ideologues in the Anti Cult Movement.

One of the best examples is Tony Ortega.

Consider what unquestioned assumptions Tony Ortega is operating on for him to be able to write the following with a straight face:

Manuela Oliveira

Manuela Oliveira leading a dance in a video while serving as a Scientology Sea Org member

It dawned on us that the young woman leading the dance was none other than Manuela Oliveira, the once promising professional dance talent with a burgeoning television career we wrote about who gave up everything — including her relationship with another professional dancer, Yannus Sufandi — in order to join Scientology’s Sea Organization, signing its billion-year contract to completely dedicate her life to the church.

If you remember that story, we just happened to be in Los Angeles in 2013 when Yannus and Tiziano Lugli lured Manuela away from the Big Blue headquarters to Tiziano’s house in order to attempt an intervention. It went badly, in part because of the logistics involved. We truly believed that if Tom DeVocht had been able to get there earlier, he might have had a chance to influence Manuela.

Shortly after that story appeared, Manuela moved back to Australia and was involved with the Sydney Ideal Org. We hadn’t heard about her since. And now here she is, dancing, but for Scientology in a public park.

Manuela, aren’t you Curious? About what your career might be like now if you hadn’t joined the Sea Org?

What gives Tony the “confidence” to ask such a question to a fellow human being, and to act like he knows the answer to it?

Why does Tony Ortega think he has the wisdom, and the standing, to judge the life choices of other people this way?

Critical Thinking Questions Tony Ortega Might Ask Himself:

‘If I’m so sure that Manuela would have had such a great dance career had she not joined Scientology, would Elizabeth Moss or John Travolta’s careers in the arts been better if they did not get themselves involved in Scientology, too?’

‘Why do I think I know about Manuela’s artistic future, but not about Tom Cruise’s?’

I could go on.

And I will.

Critical Thinking Questions Tony Ortega Should Ask Himself is a freaking perpetual motion machine of AlanzosBlog post ideas.

Look to this space for more.

_____________________________________

Another AntiCult Movement Ideologue Faces Losing Her License as a Psychologist

Rachel Bernstein

Rachel Bernstein, Anti Cult Movement Counselor


Rachel Bernstein, the cult counselor who attacked and smeared a mother who’s daughter committed suicide, is facing the loss of her psych license for passing judgment on the mental state of another woman, this time to a court, that – per the complaint – she also never examined.

Sound familiar?

Here’s what she’s accused of:

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. On or about May 2, 2018, M. S. filed a complaint with the Board, alleging that Respondent niisused her license as a marriage and family therapist by writing a letter to the family court to include clinical observations about M. S. without ever seeing her as a client.

10. On or about May 13, 2013 and May 16, 2013, M.S. and her husband, J.S., exchanged emails with Respondent to enlist her assistance with an issue involving J.S. ‘smother, S.D., calling her son at his office and bullying and upsetting him. On or about May 16, 2013, M.S. and J.S. spoke with Respondent over the telephone about their concern about S.D.
1 The initials of individuals referenced in this Accusation are used to protect their privacy. However, upon a timely and proper request for discovery from Respondent, Complainant will provide discovery documents which reveal their identities.

On March 27, 2014, Respondent was copied on an email exchange with S.D. in which M.S. and J.S. encouraged S.D. to pursue therapy, and indicated they did not want to be involved in therapy sessions with S.D.

While Respondent did provide therapy to J.S., she never provided therapy to M.S. At the time of the only telephone call in which Respondent spoke with M. S., her children had not been born yet. Furthermore, Respondent never met M.S. in person or observed M.S. with her children.

M.S. and J.S. became embroiled in a divorce and custody case involving their two young children, who were the ages of 13 months and three years. On or about April 16, 2018, Respondent wrote a letter to the court for J.S., in connection with his petition for change of custody, in which she stated that M.S. was a “narcissist/emotional abuser”, a “controller”, and someone who is likely to make up “false allegations”. Respondent also claimed to have “specialized” experience with narcissistic persons and manipulators, which allowed her to immediately recognize M. S. as narCissistic. Respondent opined that M.S. was at risk of making false allegations, perpetrating PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome), and that J.S. needed legal protection against M. S.

Respondent did not obtain M.S.’s consent to provide the letter dated April 16, 2018 to the court. M.S. was shocked to learn of Respondent’s letter with its clinical observations and diagnosis of her as narcissistic based upon their limited communications three or four years ago, and without having met or treated her.

During an interview with the Board’s investigator, M.S.’s attorney stated that Respondent’s letter was stricken from the record by the family law court in the couple’s custody dispute. In addition, M.S. ‘s attorney indicated that, at the time Respondent submitted the Jetter for J.S. with the court, there was an open Department and Children of Family Services investigation of J.S. for child abuse, and J.S. was limited to weekly supervised visits of three hours with his children.

When interviewed by the Board’s investigator, Respondent stated that M.S. was never her client, but because of her “specialized expertise”, she recognized that M.S. was narcissistic.

Respondent did not provide any information to support her claim she had specialized experience, education or training in narcissistic disorders. Furthermore, Respondent claimed that M.S. was harassing her and her children with process servers issuing a subpoena. Respondent contended that her letter referenced narcissistic characteristics in general, but that she had not diagnosed M.S. with narcissism and had not made any custody recommendations. FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Incompetence in the Performance of Marriage and Family Therapy)

Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 4982, subdivision (d), on the grounds of incompetence in that Respondent: a. Showed that she lacked general knowledge about informed consent and confidentiality, which are primary tenets of the practice of marriage and family law. Respondent violated M.S. ‘s confidentiality as a potential client and/or collateral family member, by disclosing confidential information about M.S. in the April 2018 letter she submitted to the family law court in connection with J.S.’s petition for change of custody, without first obtaining M.S. ‘s consent and a signed Written authorization/release from M.S. b. Wrote and provided a letter to the court expressing an expert opinion in a child custody dispute between M.S. and J.S., diagnosing M.S. as narcissistic, manipulative, abusive and controlling, without ever having met or provided therapeutic services to M.S., and without considering J.S.’s motives for having Respondent write the letter.

c. Provided expert opinions in the family law case involving M.S. and J.S. without considering the ramifications of those opinions, including that J.S. was harassing Respondent by attempting to serve a subpoena on her, which showed that she lacked the necessary training and experience to do so. d. Failed to consider the potential damage the opinions in her April 2018 letter could have on J.S., M.S. and their relationship with their children, and opined about the safety of M.S. with her children, without completing an evaluation of the family in the.context of the custody case.

e. Held herself out as having specialized expertise in diagnosing narcissism to support her diagnosis ofM.S. as narcissistic, without meeting M.S. or conducting an evaluation of M.S., which did not conform to standard therapy practices for assessment and diagnosis. 18. Complainant refers to and hereby expressly incorporates the allegations contained within paragraphs 9-16, above, as through fully set forth herein. SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Gross Negligence) 19. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 4982, subdivision (d), on the grounds of gross negligence in that Respondent: a. Violated M.S. ‘s confidentiality as a potential client and/or collateral family member, by disclosing confidential information about M.S. in the April 2018 letter she submitted to the family law court in connection with J.S.’s petition for change of custody, without first obtaining M.S. ‘s consent and a signed written authorization/ release from M.S. b. Wrote and provided a letter to the court expressing an expert opinion in a child custody dispute between M.S. and J.S., diagnosing M.S. as narcissistic, manipulative and controlling, without ever having met or provided therapeutic services to M.S., and without considering J.S. ‘s motives for having Respondent write the letter. c. Provided expert opinions in the family law case involving M.S. and J.S. without considering the ramifications of those opinions, including that M.S. was harassing Respondent by attempting to serve a subpoena on her, which showed that she lacked the necessary training and experience to do so. d. Failed to consider the potential damage the opinions in her April 2018 letter to the court would have on J.S., M.S. and their relationship with their children, and opined about the safety ofM.S. with her children, without completing an evaluation of the family in the context of the custody case. e. Held herself out as having specialized expertise in diagnosing narcissism to support her diagnosis ofM.S. as narcissistic, without meeting M.S. or conducting an evaluation of M.S., which did not conform to standard practices for assessment and diagnosis.

Complainant refers to and hereby expressly incorporates the allegations contained within paragraphs 9- 16, above, as through fully set forth herein. THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Failure to Maintain Confidentiality)
Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code section 4982, subdivision (m), in that she violated the confidentiality of M.S., who was a potential client, and a family member of two of Respondent’s clients, by failing to obtain M.S.’s informed consent and a written release before providing the April 2018 letter to the family law court, and by releasing M.S.’s telephone and email address without M.S. ‘s authorization.

Complainant refers to and hereby expressly incorporates the allegations contained within paragraphs 9-16, above, as through fully set forth herein. FOURTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

(Practicing Outside the Scope of Ones’s Practice and Experience)

Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under Code sections 4982, subdivisions (I) and (s), in conjunction with California Code of Regulations, Title 16, section 1845, in that she: a. Si.1bmitted a letter to a family law court expressing an expert opinion in a child custody dispute which diagnosed M.S. as narcissistic, without having specialized education or experience in narcissistic disorders, and without meeting with M.S. or conducting an evaluation ofM.S. b. Provided expert opinions in a family law court case without considering the ramifications of those opinions, including that J.S. was harassing her by attempting to serve a subpoena on her, which showed that she lacked the necessary training and experience ·to do so. c. Opined about the safety ofM.S. with her children, without completing an evaluation of the family in the context of the custody case and without the expertise to do so.
Complainant refers to and hereby expressly incorporates the allegations contained within paragraphs 9-16, above, as through fully set forth herein.

FIFTH CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Violating Statutes and Regulations) 25. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under sections 4982, subdivision (e), on the grounds of unprofessional conduct, in that Respondent violated statutes and regulations adopted by the Board, as more particularly set forth in paragraphs 9-16 above, which are incorporated here. by this reference, as follows: a. Section 4982, subdivision ( d): Respondent was incompetent in the performance of marriage and family therapy; b. Section 4982, subdivision (d): Respondent’s acts and omissions fell sufficiently below the standard of conduct of the profession as to constitute gross negligence; c. Section 4982, subdivision (e):

Respondent violated provisions of the Code and regulations adopted by the Board; d. Section 4982, subdivisions (!) and ( s): Respondent performed, or held herself out as being able to perform professional services beyond the scope ofher competence, as established by her education, training, or experience; and f. California Code of Regulations, Title 16, section 1845: Respondent acted · unprofessionally as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 16, section 1845. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged, and that following the hearing, the Board of Behavioral Sciences issue a decision: 1. Revoking or suspending Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist License Number LMFT 28267, issued to Rachel Anne Bernstein;

https://search.dca.ca.gov/details/2001/LMFT/28267/5742cc154285fe201616911fd9181533#pr

, ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

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

Clicky