Subject:      Re: MAYO- Stolen Material
From:         mayo@lightlink.com (Julie Mayo)
Date:         1996/04/23
Message-Id:   <4lhsp4$onc@light.lightlink.com>
Sender:       electra@light.lightlink.com
Organization: Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway v2.4
Newsgroups:   alt.religion.scientology


srcs@aol.com (SRCS) wrote:

>MAYO?

>You keep referring to "THE" stolen pack.  You had access to "A" NOT's

After reading Robin Scott's briefing of April 21, 1984, I see that RTC/CofS=
 actually dropped the charge of theft at the time of Robin Scott's trial.  I=
 hadn't realized that before -- per Robin Scott:
'And the judge decided "Right.  We want to dismiss theft."  And the=
 prosecution said "Okay.  We will withdraw the charge of theft."

Robin Scott did plead guilty to the third charge brought against him by the=
 plaintiffs RTC, which according to Robin Scott:  "I wasn't originally=
 charged with theft, but I was charged under this funny sort of minor=
 paragraph in a sub-clause of the Danish penal code which relates to=
 entering premises with a view to obtaining documents or information. =
 Doesn't say anything broader than that."

Robin Scott then went on to say this about it:  "Now, I'd already pleaded=
 guilty to this charge, but with mitigating circumstances and my lawyer then=
 went into a detailed explanation of the background of the case." (...) =
 "And it's nice, you know, when you get some real humanity there and=
 somebody duplicates what the real scene is and we could see that the judge=
 was duplicating the real scene.  And, as a result, to cut a long story=
 short, after a short delay of twenty minutes while he deliberated, he came=
 out and announced that I was being given a four month sentence of which one=
 month I had already served, but the remaining three months he was making=
 into what you might call a conditional or what we call in this country a=
 suspended sentence.  I didn't have to serve it.  And he therefore announced=
 that I should be released the same day.  Overwhelming scenes of jubilation=
 from the independent Scientologists at the front of the court, ah, Carol=
 Kanda was in tears, people were  wringing my hand, and it was great, just=
 absolutely tremendous."

After reading this I am curious about whether the pack that Robin Scott was=
 given in Denmark could really be considered to be a "stolen" NOTs pack, as=
 the charge of theft was dropped by the court and by the plaintiffs in=
 Denmark.  This may be hair splitting, but because the C of S refers to it=
 as a "stolen NOTs pack" - it has become adopted language by many people.

From what I hear, what happened was that Robin Scott, and I think Morag=
 Bellmaine, dressed up in Sea Org costumes and went into the Advanced Org in=
 Denmark and asked for and were given two copies of the NOTs pack.

I think there has been an even better ruling on this in the UK case.  Does=
 anyone know what the answer to this question is regarding whether it is=
 technically correct to refer to the packs given to Robin Scott as "stolen=
 NOTs packs"?  Didn=92t the UK court rule =93...100% negligence ...=94 on=
 the plaintiffs part?

Robin Scott has also testified in a deposition that David Mayo had nothing=
 to do with his acquisition of the materials;  that  copies of the pack=
 weren't given to David Mayo and that  David Mayo had made it quite clear=
 that he didn't want copies of the pack.

>pack.  Did you steal it yourself?  Or more precisley how did you come into
>possession of what you DID use to write the AAV pack?=20

It is common knowledge how the AAV pack came into being. In July of 1983,=
 David Mayo gave two quite long lectures to Dona Haber -- to train her on=
 the procedure we called AAV.  These two lectures were transcribed by Dona=
 Haber and became a major portion of the AAV pack.  This and notes from=
 other people -- my notes, Jay Gibson's notes, Merrill Mayo's notes, and=
 others were used by David in the writing and compilation of the AAV pack. =
 As the AAC trained many people on AAV, including several of its own staff=
 who had earlier been trained on NOTs while with the Church of Scientology. =
 So there are many  people who know that AAV  wasn't similar in expression=
 to the NOTs pack, which Judge Pfaelzer ultimately decided herself.

Note also  that these lectures and notes predated the Robin Scott incident=
 by several months.  Also note that David Mayo wrote the original NOTs to=
 start with, which is also no secret.

The RTC cases against Mayo was dismissed, the injunction was overturned by=
 the 9th circuit and the recent 11 April 1996 decision comments about RTC's=
 credibility in these matters.  Take a look for yourself.  The full decision=
 is posted here:
http://superlink.net/~mgarde/scott5.txt

Julie Mayo