“Battling Scientology” Follow-Up

WTF with Macedonia?!

Get Your Subscription to Black Republican Magazine

36 Comments

• Yoni said:

  And people wonder why we wear masks. Gregg lost $5000 to a bail bondsman and then more to lawyers to defend himself because he showed up to a protest and they got his name from the permit. The Cult made his life a living hell because they could, not because he did something wrong.

  It is because of Gregg that we will fight on. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

  October 24, 2008 5:47 PM

• louanne said:

  Yoni, contempt of court is kinda harmless against what you say here. And how did Gregg lose $5,000 to a bail bondsman? Was he already imprisoned? I must have missed that. Anyway, criminal actions are just not justifiable, and this case is harmless against the other Anonymous cases we learned about in the past weeks. Like Guzner or Myers.

  October 24, 2008 7:57 PM

• Nick said:

  People don't wonder why the cowards of anonymous wear masks - they know - people who hide behind masks while committing crimes are afraid. Afraid to be known for their actions, afraid to be known for their beliefs and, well, basically just afraid. The Church didn't do anything to Gregg, Gregg is being made to take responsibility for his actions. He broke the law, he went to trial, he gets the sentence. Don't do the crime if can't do the time!

  October 24, 2008 8:10 PM

• fred willcutt said:

  Simple case.  He was being prosecuted for protesting.  what the fuck country is this?

  October 24, 2008 8:24 PM

• david m. said:

  Scientology is creepy. Suing someone because they were the one with the name on the protest permit?! That is 100% Un-American. I can't support that.

  Also the fake comment by nick is creepy. Probably they will supena this blog and get my name to sue me next.

  October 24, 2008 9:58 PM

• Yoni said:

  louanne,

  Gregg was brought in on a false assault charge (later dropped by the Scientologist who claimed he was assaulted, not mentioned in this article because the Scientologist recanted) and bail was set at $50,000. So he had to spend $5000 to not sit in jail.

  October 24, 2008 10:54 PM

• General Public AYS said:

  Hubbards intention was to restrict mention of scientology to the religious pages of newspapers. This strategy never worked and never will, precisely because the organisation is an evil cult unable to behave itself according to the virtues and laws of civilised homo-sapiens.

  People like louanne believe they are 'Homo-Novis'-new-men. It reminds us of the uber and untermensch of nazi philosophy. This louanne knows we know that she is taught to lie, mislead, cheat and destroy according to 'Fair Game' policy. When her organisation is toppled it is people like her/him who will carry the can -not Miscavige who's already planned his route of escape.

  So louanne and friends, don't gloat on small victories, think about the whole campaign. Leave now before it's too late

  October 25, 2008 3:59 AM

• GREGG'S ALTER EGO said:

  It appears that Gregg, the leader of anonymous, is free.  He can still lead from his computer, hacking illegaly into areas, disrupting normal functions and inspiring other jobless kids to do the same.  

  October 25, 2008 9:32 AM

• Judy Burnette said:

  I am a Deist, and while we believe in God, we don't believe in religion. For me that means I am free not to have to choose the "correct" religion, and I don't have to hate others because they have chosen the "wrong" religion.  One person's "cult" is another person's "religion."  I cannot understand why anyone would protest another person's religion.  It is medieval, and it is wrong. If members of the religion are commiting criminal acts according to written civil law even then you don't protest the religion: you protest and prosecute any and all unlawful acts carried out by members of that religion. If freedom of speech gives Housh the right to protest, then certainly Scientologists also have the right of free speech as well as the right to practice their chosen religion. The mild slap on Housh's hand from the Court is indicative of the widespread prejudice against Scientology. I doubt that Housh really has any more knowledge of Scientology than he has of Rosecrucians or Zoroastrians. One thing you can be sure of: Housh proves the point that too many folks at every level of so-called "civilized" society are all too ready to jump on any bandwagon that is headed toward prejudice and hate.  Housh demonstrates that he has far too much time on his hands.  I suggest that he get a life.  

  October 25, 2008 12:10 PM

• Anonymous said:

  GREGG'S ALTER EGO: Sup, OSA? Gregg doesn't hack or disrupt anything. Nor does he lead us.

  He legally held protest permits for a legitimate expression of free speech and you know it. Just because the cult can convince a DA to help them with their legal harassment doesn't mean he did anything wrong. Had he gone to trial I have no doubt he would have been found Not Guilty, but that's not the point.

  The way the cult works in court is this: They do not play to win. They play to make you lose. If he took it to trial, they would have dragged the proceedings out more than they did to the pre-trials and eventually drained Gregg's pockets more than they have already. The fact is, the CoS's goal is to cause you to cough up so much dough in the process of defending yourself that you can no longer afford to put up a fight.

  Google "Fair Game".

  October 25, 2008 1:19 PM

• Nikki said:

  Judy, if people protested the catholic church for the sexual abuse cases, are you just as critical of them?  You attempt to criticize Gregg and the rest these peaceful activists of "not having knowledge" of the subject, yet it seems you don't even understand at all what the protests are about.  I can't help but find that a little hypocritical.  If you'd take a few minutes to actually look into it, you'd understand that it is not their beliefs that are being protested, but the criminal history and tendencies as well as their litigious (and sometimes physically aggressive) attacks on the free speech of those that try to bring the darker side of this organization to light.

  Why don't you try listening to what the victims of $cientology have to say on the matter before you go around slinging accusations of "prejudice and hate" at those who are working to protect them and prevent further abuse by that organization on it's members and critics.  

  There is a whole website founded by 3 young ladies  who were raised in, abused by, then left and wanted to share their stories as a word of caution to others where others can share their stories.  It's called exscientologykids.com

  Things are not always as they appear, Judy.  According to what you've told us about yourself, you already know to look beyond the surface.  So look beyond the thin veneer of civility that organization and it's army of lawyers work so hard to put up and see the wolf in sheep's clothing with a salesman's smile.

  All these activists want is for you to LOOK.  So please, just look at both sides of the story before jumping into the whole "OMG religious persecution!" knee-jerk reaction.

  October 25, 2008 2:41 PM

• Another Anon said:

  @Judy Bernette:

  I find your claim as to your faith difficult to believe, mostly because your statements so closely echo those of the Scientology staffers that post wherever criticism of the Church of Scientology is discussed.  In case you're for real, and not just another parrot/troll, allow me to remind you and everyone else:

  Anonymous is not attacking anyone's religion, any more than those who protested against the sheltering of pedophiles within the Catholic clergy were.  It is not an attack on someone's religion or beliefs to criticize the wrongful actions of their faith's organization(s).

  Anonymous protests against the illegal and wrongful actions carried out by the Church of Scientology, and attempts to raise public and governmental awareness of the dangerous practices of this organization.  In response, the CoS levels false accusations against protestors, hires private investigators to follow and intimidate them, makes false complaints to their employers in attempts to get them fired, sabotages their vehicles, vandalizes their property... the list goes on and on.  For some of the more recent activity, take a look here:

  forums.whyweprotest.net/122-fair-game

  October 25, 2008 3:03 PM

• Dave2 said:

  Judy, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, accusing others of "prejudice and hate" without bothering to learn the basic facts about the abusive and dangerous cult Scientology.

  And it's not like these facts are controversial or difficult to find. Every single journalist and every single government investigator and every single judge comes to the same conclusion about Scientology: it's a crooked cult that mistreats its members and tries to destroy its perceived enemies.

  Start by reading some news and magazine journalists: the 1991 Time Magazine article, the 1986 Forbes piece, the six-part 1990 Los Angeles Times series, the 1980 Reader's Digest article, the Pulitzer Prize-winning 1980 St. Petersburg Times series on the takeover of Clearwater, the 2006 Rolling Stone article, the 1984 Sunday Times Magazine piece, the 1968 Life magazine article, the 1986 L.A. Weekly article, the 1994 Washington Post article, the 1997 L.A. Weekly article on Study Tech, the 1997 New York Times article on their tax-exempt status, the 1980 American Lawyer piece on Scientology's war against judges, the 1999 New Times L.A. piece on the takeover of the Cult Awareness Network, the 1998 Boston Herald series, the eight-part 2001 New Times L.A. series, the Maisonneuve profile of Gerry Armstrong from June 23 of this year, or the lengthy Village Voice article from June 30 of this year.

  Being tolerant is one thing. Tolerating criminal activity is another (and I mean real criminal activity, not peaceful protesting).

  October 25, 2008 3:29 PM

• Robert Lugo said:

  Apparently some didn't see this part in the above-

  Technically, it is an admission that "there are sufficient facts to find you guilty" of the charges. Pleading to a CWOF will happen at a pre-trial conference as part of a plea agreement, if your attorney can get the prosecutor to agree.”

  Obviously he was guilty and BOTH parties agreed to the deal.

  October 25, 2008 4:21 PM

• Nikki said:

  While I admit, that Judy does sound a bit OSA, I must also admit that it was not long ago that I had similar thoughts on the matter until I was persuaded to look into it for myself.  

  If she is OSA, then she's pretty much done us a favor by bringing up a common misconception that some may have on subject (like I once did), which gives us an opportunity to clear up that misconception for the other readers.  Thanks Judy!

  October 25, 2008 4:40 PM

• Anonymous said:

  Robert Lugo: You sure are an awesome lawyer.

  See, I always thought it meant there were sufficient facts to bring the case to trial. You know, since that's what it means.

  I know this because I have experience with it. It is basically an agreement to avoid wasting time. It does not mean "I AM GUILTY" or "YOU WILL FIND ME GUILTY" it means "BASED ON THE DEAL YOU HAVE OFFERED, I AM NOT WILLING TO WASTE TIME PROVING MY INNOCENCE"

  October 25, 2008 5:04 PM

• Congrats Greg said:

  Well the outcome could have been better.And I don't think he should have been brought to court for protesting, which is he is legal right.( he did not go inside that damn building)  But at least the charges were dropped.  And I admire Greg's strength in all this bullshit, which should have never been brought to court.

  Scientology has a lot of nerve pressing charges in the first place. He was NOT the one who entered the building. But his name was on the protest permit, so the vultures went after the only person that they had a name for.

  They also claim that Housh "disturbed a day of worship". Worship what? They believe in no God, they don't pray,(they do prey however),  and I am not aware of any Sunday services. They are NOT a religion. And Hubbard the founder even stated that himself. LOOK IT UP.

  They say that Scientology is the knowledge of knowing? So.....what exactly are they worshipping here? "Knowingness"???

  as Hubbard would say? (one of his many made up idiotic words from a physcho, junkie, fraud)

  The church is a fraud, they lie under oath, their tax exemption should be revoked, and THEY are the ones that should be on trial for their many, MANY abuses and crimes which they contine to commit on a daily basis.

  Hey FBI what are you watiting for? More people to die? More people to be abused? More people to be fair gamed? More children and elderly to suffer?  You have complaints filed, signed testimonies and more.

  The more the FBI does NOTHING, the more they also become guilty of not stopping it.

  I do believe Scientology's judgement day is coming. I don't know when.... but it will.

  And karma is a bitch.

  If you are in Scientology....Save yourself, your money and your family and be FREE!

  For help leaving Scientology call

  1-866-xseaorg

  This is a free call.

  Good luck to all of you!

  October 25, 2008 7:48 PM

• Anonymous said:

  ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWAH!

  gregg did good, the death of his monies will be mourned.

  However, he does not lead us. We are leaderless and fluid because we have to be. If we had any kind of leadership, the Co$ would have drained every cent from his/her pockets with frivolous lawsuits like this one. We are leaderless because we don't need leadership. Unlike the Co$, which is dependent on directives given by higher-ups, Anonymous is a group of free thinking individuals acting for a common interest, and we're winning.

  October 26, 2008 12:35 PM

• Fredric L. Rice said:

  Once again the courts find that the Scientology crime syndicate's lies, libel, and perjury are unbelievable, without evidence, and more of the criminal enterprises' "Fair Game" racketeering against anyone who exposes or opposes the crime syndicate's crimes and abuses.

  October 26, 2008 9:12 PM

• L Fraud Hubbard said:

  Scientology =

  Ongoing Criminal Organization =

  (RICO)Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and,

  (Anti-SLAPP) Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation] =

  Camp FED.

  Expect It

  October 27, 2008 3:59 AM

• Sheila Gay said:

  Question here is hypothetical, the outcome of a trial. If it had been taken to trial, the lone person against a litigious group might have won. However, Housh would have needed witnesses to testify on his behalf.

  If he had called in other anonymous members, the opposing council would have provided the names to Scientology. Would Scientology have done nothing with that knowledge? Or is their even the slightest possibility new court cases pursued by Scientology?

  Housh might have protected others by his silence?

  October 27, 2008 6:48 AM

• Judy Burnette said:

  The church of Scientology has the same rights as every other church to protect itself from other religious zealots who wish to deprive its members of their right to worship however they please.    If you want to protest abuse by church then there has been plenty of opportunities to do this long before Scientology became the latest target.  To call Scientology a "crime syndicate" is to ignore the crimes and cover-ups of the catholic church and of too many christian fundamentalist churches, beginning with Jerry Falwell.  By protesting Scientology you are claiming that the mythology that you have been taught in your religion is more legitimate than the mythology taught under Scientology. You say "religion", I say "cult". So-called "protestors" of Scientology should be prosecuted under the federal "hate-crimes" legislation.  

  October 27, 2008 2:49 PM

• The Laughing Man said:

  @Judy

  "The church of Scientology has the same rights as every other church to protect itself from other religious zealots who wish to deprive its members of their right to worship however they please."

  Of course, except that the "Church" is really a money-making cult. There are people who aren't in the church who practise Scientology. They're called Free Zoners. We're not protesting them, just the Cult of Scientology.

  "If you want to protest abuse by church then there has been plenty of opportunities to do this long before Scientology became the latest target."

  If you want to protest abuse by the church (of Scientology) then there as been plenty of opportunities to do this long before Scientology became the latest target.

  Your argument makes no sense. As shown in my calarification, "church" refers to Scientology, so that would make your statement illogical.

  "To call Scientology a "crime syndicate" is to ignore the crimes and cover-ups of the catholic church and of too many christian fundamentalist churches, beginning with Jerry Falwell."

  Well, we know they've committed crimes too, but the Cult the largest target on our radar.

  "By protesting Scientology you are claiming that the mythology that you have been taught in your religion is more legitimate than the mythology taught under Scientology."

  Really? So Free Zoners who join the Anonymous protests are claiming their mythology is more legitimate than the Cult's? That would make the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard more legitimate than the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard.

  "You say 'religion', I say 'cult'."

  Correct. You're calling it a Church, and I'm calling it a cult.

  "So-called "protestors" of Scientology should be prosecuted under the federal 'hate-crimes' legislation."

  So protesters of a-religion-not-to-be-named-here's child abuse should also be prosecuted under federal 'hate-crimes' legislation?

  Thank you, Judy, for providing my daily dose of Internet failure. At least you got one sentence relatively correct.

  October 29, 2008 8:45 PM

• General Public AYS said:

  scientology is not a religion -

  it's a way of strife!

  October 30, 2008 6:13 AM

• The Laughing Man said:

  Sorry, it seems that I mistyped my response.

  "If you want to protest abuse by church then there has been plenty of opportunities to do this long before Scientology became the latest target."

  We're not protesting abuse by church, but a Cult. You can call it a church, but it is still the largest target on our screens.

  October 30, 2008 10:25 AM

• WolfyRik said:

  @Judy

  I find it hailarious that you keep spewing the same lie that critics are against religion. What utter rubbish. The protests have been, from the very beginning, about the abuses of the CoS. As others have rightly pointed out, why is it that not a single freezone group has been protested against by us? What's more, if this is about religion, why is it that the CoS has been the only group to attack the freezoners?

  Why on earth would they be attacking people who follow Hubbards teachings, if it's about belief not about the money they lose or the crimes they commit?

  Judy, you're an obvious cult shill. We can usually spot them from the moment they type, "I'm not a scientologist but....".

  October 30, 2008 10:28 AM

• Terryeo said:

  Oh Dear.  Oh, poor, dear, sweet, Gregg Housh, whose name just accidently appears on the protest permit because Gregg's hand just accidently happened to have a pen in it while he was standing near to the permit applications and, in a strange act-of-God twitch, his hand accidently scrawled what almost looks like his signature on the permit request.  Oh dear, oh dear. And now poor Gregg is GUILTY.

  October 31, 2008 1:25 PM

• The Laughing Man said:

  Oh dear, the legendary Terryeo makes an appearance.

  So signing permits makes people guilty?

  October 31, 2008 2:01 PM

• Just Bill said:

  @Judy

  "The church of Scientology has the same rights as every other church to protect itself from other religious zealots who wish to deprive its members of their right to worship however they please."

  Provide ANY evidence that ANYONE has deprived Scientologists of their "right to worship".  No one has done this.  Why do you claim it happened?

  All Anonymous, and other Scientology critics want is for the Church of Scientology to STOP COMMITTING CRIMES.  That's all!  Worship as you wish but stop your criminal activities!

  Oh, wait. Are you saying that committing crimes is essential to Scientology's religious worship?!  

  Wow! What a church!

  November 9, 2008 12:56 PM

• chewyannbert-Luana1980-Lighfield-curioser-steve-churilov said:

  I'm not a big fan of Scientology, and I'm glad it's members don't patrol the Internet, that'd be creepy, but maybe people are just attacking Scientology to hide there own crimes.

  November 15, 2008 11:55 PM

• Liz said:

  Hi everyone. He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.

  I am from Kiribati and learning to read in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Use it or lose it - surprising secrets in airline tickets."

  Best regards :-D, Liz.

  March 29, 2009 9:26 AM

Leave a Comment