Subject: Re: MAYO- Stolen Material From: mayo@lightlink.com (Julie Mayo) Date: 1996/04/23 Message-Id: <4li4m2$371@light.lightlink.com> Sender: electra@light.lightlink.com Organization: Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway v2.4 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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’t the UK court rule “...100% negligence ...” 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? 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMXx1bqUzTdUDYOWNAQFiMgP/UuXbhT9pjaGoOAUEWe+1UfWIEklQ2eG6 WzC8IC0N+p6peeqpM/dXSi8GyyTV2bYviWSbNaI5070Rwda27vOtCSgOCO8aCHyU pggrC1IzaQt6iA6WzA01fUOaZnLR6tZcbdm2wbElWk9aLx2kcvw5aFqc55GY4lXW 4/i2rdSlYRM= =wf1G -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----