Talk:Jason Scott case/Archive 1

Shupe source should not be used
used the Anson Shupe source to write that the criminal trial of Rick Ross (consultant) in the Jason Scott case resulted in a "hung jury",. This is a false statement. See this source (cited by Jayen466 himself for other info in the article and yet neglected in this instance) where it states: "On January 18, 1994, after just two hours of deliberations, a Greys Harbor jury acquitted Rick Ross of unlawful detainment." This is corroborated in other secondary sources as well:

Again, Anson Shupe as a source is unreliable, and should not be used. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take it to RS/N. Jayen 466 19:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not add sources "supporting" claims which they do not support
The article claims that "Jason testified that he then endured five days of derogatory comments about himself, his beliefs, his girlfriend and his pastor, and diatribes by Ross about the ways in which Christianity and conservative Protestantism were wrong." These are highly specific claims. It goes without saying that no source which does not even mention these highly specific claims should be cited as a source for them.

However, that is exactly what Jayen466 did in this edit, claiming that this newspaper article by a Thomas Haines was a source for the claim. Here is the only part of the Haines article which is even close to the sentence in question: "Scott claims deprogrammer Rick Ross and others held him in a room, subjecting him 'to a nearly constant barrage of verbal abuse intended to force Scott to renounce his faith,' according to court papers." There is no mention of the target of Ross' alleged "barrage of verbal abuse"; the Haines article cannot be cited as "support" for the claim that Ross went on "diatribes ... about the ways in which Christianity and conservative Protestantism were wrong."

Of the two remaining possible sources for this claim, one of them is the book by Shupe and Darnell. Shupe admitted in the Scott trial that he did not base even his expert testimony on the actual statements of the plaintiffs and defendants, but upon "excerpts" of them provided by the same man named by the Federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator for providing false handwriting samples. This is definitely not a source that we can rely upon for such specific and controversial claims. Do we in fact have any reliable source that supports these claims? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Kidnapping
Weren't the participants found "not guilty" on the kidnapping charges? If so, why are we using that term? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Various sources use the term; e.g. (p. 26, 2nd para from bottom of page)  (off Ross Institute website)  ("a young man named Jason Scott -- who had been kidnapped and deprogrammed from an evangelical Christian sect", New Times LA article on lermanet.com) etc.  Jayen 466 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be precise, Ross was acquitted of a criminal charge of "unlawful imprisonment", according to multiple RS, e.g. . This article also states that Scott was "abducted and held captive". Jayen 466 23:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So who was convicted of "violent kidnapping"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit stated in its appeal decision that "With the aid of two confederates, Ross abducted Scott and held him captive for five days". (The document also mentions that CAN denied endorsing "violent deprogrammings", in direct relation to this specific case.) Jayen 466 00:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This article refers to a "violent abduction". Jayen 466 00:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is another account here, by another scholar, stating that
 * Jayen 466 01:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and Bias of editor Jayen466
Jayen466 has dominated this article as its primary editor. This article is accordingly skewed using edited comments sliced and assembled in such a way as to represent a distinct point of view. Anonymous editor Jayen466 has a direct conflict of interest regarding the subjects of this article, i.e. deprogramming, cults and Rick Ross. Jayen466 is a supporter of a notorious guru named "Osho" also known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Rajneesh has often been called a "cult leader" and the Ross Institute Internet Archives, which I founded, reflects this historical fact through a subsection devoted to news articles about the guru, who was an infamous character in Oregon before his forced departure from the US and death. Jayen466 apparently is unhappy about any information available through the Internet that discredits his guru and so he has apparently taken it on as something like a mission, to use Wikipedia entries as a means of retaliation against those with critical information about Osho. It is sad that Wikipedia can be used this way. Perhaps Wikipedia should sort through such situations and not allow people to edit articles that have such an obvious conflict of interest and/or personal agenda. For example, I cannot edit this article. All I can do is bring out the above facts and hope that visitors/readers will find it on this Discussion page.Rick A. Ross (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of "dialog" from court records
The supposed dialog between Scott and Ross isn't. It's one person's account of what was said and isn't properly attributed in the article. i.e. "According to Scott, Ross said that ..." Buck-passing to the Shupe reference won't save this, it need to go. AndroidCat (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't know if it is one person's account. One of Ross's associates (Rotroff, who turned state's evidence in the criminal trial) testified against the defendants and may have corroborated it. However, I am not averse to inserting "according to testimony", and indeed agree it would be proper to do so. Jayen 466 12:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Jayen 466 12:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't Shupe even reference who actually said what? "According to testimony" is far too vague. Clean it up, or I'll do it when I have time. Meanwhile, I've put out a call for law article experts to have a look. AndroidCat (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Shupe simply states it as fact. "Jason demanded ...", "Ross responded ...". However, he prefaces the entire account by saying it is "based closely on court documents and testimonies, including Scott's own under-oath account." I see no good reason to depart further from the presentation in the source, unless one of us can get hold of the actual court documents. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Does Shupe qualify as a third-party source? AndroidCat (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

False and misleading statements
There are many false and misleading statements within this article. Often Jayen466, the dominant editor of this article who is a devotee of Osho/Rajneesh and has a certain POV regarding groups called "cults," uses questionable and/or biased sources selectively. Some of these sources have been called "cult apologists" such as David Bromley, Anson Shupe and the organization known as CESNUR. Anson Shupe has been a paid expert employed by Scientology lawyers. Many of the most outrageous and ridiculous statements can be attributed to these tainted sources.

Jason Scott was not simply "a member of a Pentecostalist church."

This statement is grossly misleading. He was in fact a member of the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), a fringe organization outside of the mainstream of Pentecostalism, which denounces Christians that believe in the trinity as "pagans" and further condemns all Christians that are not baptized according to the group's beliefs "in the name of Jesus only." The UPCI does not fellowship with mainstream Pentecostals such as the Assemblies of God or other Christians. The UPCI also practices what is called the "holiness standards," which includes a rigid dress and grooming code, e.g. men must be cleanshaven, maintain conservative haircuts and refrain from wearing jewelry. Women may not cut their hair, must wear dresses well below the knee with long sleeves and also refrain from using make-up or wearing jewelry. The UPCI has often been referred to as "heretical" and called a "cult" by evangelical Christians. See http://www.watchman.org/cults/upc.htm And former members also have alleged abuses see http://www.spiritualabuse.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick A. Ross (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jason Scott's mother "Katherine Tonkin, had been a member of the church, but had withdrawn from it after falling out with a business partner, also a church member."

This statement is very misleading. Katherine Tonkin withdrew from the church for many reasons such as the extreme control the pastor exerted over its members and most importantly what she believed to be an inappropriate relationship between her then minor son and an adult male member of the church. This was reported by the press and specifically cited within her sworn affidavit. See http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming25.html This same affidavit is contained within the official federal court record.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Tonkin then ejected the two younger sons from her househould, the youngest, aged thirteen, going to live with his grandmother, and the second-youngest, sixteen, moving in with another family from the church. Jason remained at home at first, but subsequently also moved in with his grandmother."

This statement is false and/or misleading.

Kathy Tonkin did not want her children to leave home. Under the influence of church leaders they left home in the belief that their mother was "damned" for leaving the church. Kathy Tonkin specifically states within her sworn affidavit "Thysen and Matthew moved out of the house the day I quit going to Life Tabernacle Church. [Pastor] Kearn told them that if they left the church with me, they would lose their salvation and be 'out of the truth.' Kearn called me a back-slider reprobate. Jason move out a few weeks later."Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"To facilitate the programming, Ross..."

There was no "programming," but rather a deprogramming intervention.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"...the boys gave up their Pentecostal beliefs..."

This statement is false and/or misleading. The boys, Thysen and Matthew, did not give up their religious beliefs. They simply decided to break away from the Life Tarenacle Church, its Pastor Harold Kearn and the UPCI at the conclusion of the intervention.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Scott's legs, upper body and back had sustained multiple bruises and abrasions..."

It should be noted that Jason Scott is well over six feet tall and at the time of his deprogramming weighed over 200 pounds. There was a struggle between Jason and the security people hired by his mother. Jason Scott did not subsequently complain of any injuries to his mother or brothers, who were present at all times during the deprogramming.Rick A. Ross (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"asked Ross whether he would try to make him change his religious beliefs. Ross replied, 'Yeah, that's what I'm paid to do.' Scott then threatened him with criminal prosecution, to which Ross was said to have responded with laughter: 'You're not going anywhere and if you give me any problems I'm going to handcuff you to the bed frame and it's going to be more uncomfortable than the ride over here.'"

This recounting of the deprogramming intervention is false. Jason was never told that he must "change his religious beliefs," but rather question the authority and control exercised over him by Pastor Harold Kearn. Jason was never told that he would be treated badly or harmed in any way, as his mother and brothers were always present and very concerned about his welfare.Rick A. Ross (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Being fed poor, fatty food, he began to suffer from diarrhea and nausea, in addition to his scratches and bruises."

This statement is grossly distorted and misleading. Kathy Tonkin, Jason's mother and an old family friend did the cooking for all the meals during the deprogramming. Jason and everyone else there at the beach house ate the same food without complaint and seemed fine. Kathy Tonkin did her best under the circumstances. This grossly distorted view of the menu is extracted from the writings of Anson Shupe, a cult apologist, who has received money from Scientology lawyers for his services. Shupe worked very closely with Kendrick Moxon, the Scientology lawyer that once represented Jason Scott, but was eventually fired by Scott after he reconciled with his family.Rick A. Ross (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Scott testified that he then endured five days of derogatory comments about himself, his beliefs, his girlfriend and his pastor, and diatribes by Ross about the ways in which Christianity and conservative Protestantism were wrong."

This is a false statement based solely upon one view of the intervention. Jason's mother Kathy Tonkin and his brothers firmly believed in "Christianity and conservative Protestantism." There was no denigration of that belief in any way, shape or form. Rather the control of Pastor Kearn and the UPCI was questioned and how it had torn the family apart. Jason's planned marriage to a member of the church much older than him was also questioned. That marriage would eventually end in a bitter divorce after Jason left the church some years later and his wife and two children remained. Ironically, Jason was then put into the same position once held by his mother, as someone damned outside of the group.Rick A. Ross (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Jason Scott case brought about the demise of the Cult Awareness Network, marking the end of the cult wars, at least in North America. Controversies surrounding new religious movements have continued, but the debate has largely moved to other arenas than the courts."

This statement is false and/or grossly misleading and attempts to posit a minority opinion not generally shared and/or supported by historical facts. "Cults" continue to be both in the courts and in the news. Since the Scott deprogramming occurred there have been numerous front page cult stories such as the Waco Davidian standoff and mass suicide 1993, Solar Temple mass suicide 1994, Aum gas attack of Tokyo subway 1995, Heaven's Gate mass suicide 1997, Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments mass suicide 2000 and Elizabeth Smart abduction in 2003. Court proceedings surrounded much of these events. And numerous court prosecutions concerning groups called "cults" are pending right now across America including cult leader Tony Alamo in Arkansas, Strong City "prophet" Wayne Bent in New Mexico, House of Yahweh leader Bill Hawkins in Texas, 1 Mind Ministries in Maryland, Alan Bushey in Wisconsin, Phil Aguilar in California and numerous other reported cult related incidents, which seem to be in the news almost daily. These groups are rarely referred to as "new religious movements."

Deprogramming and "brainwashing" has also been the focus of court cases such as the criminal prosecutions of Winifred Wright, Karen Robidoux and "D.C. sniper" Lee Boyd Malvo.

This statement is fairly ridiculous and historically incoherent.

"With the Scott decision, the practice of deprogramming came to an almost complete halt in North America."

The involuntary deprogramming of adults has seemingly ceased in North America. But minor children continue to be deprogrammed under the authority of a legal guardian involuntarily. And though "deprogramming" is not the word most frequently used to describe cult interventions today, what can be seen essentially as voluntary deprogramming continues under various titles such as "exit counseling," "strategic intervention," "thought reform consultation," etc. I have professionally done hundreds of cult interventions since the Scott case ended.Rick A. Ross (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Our job is to reflect verifiable published views. There are many sources making similar statements: "The rulings in the Fishman and Scott cases ended the practice of deprogramming in the United States." (Lucas, Robbins: New Religious Movements in the Twenty-first Century, 2004) Today, rather than deprogramming, most responsible professionals ... use a process called exit counseling. (Snow: Deadly Cults: The Crimes of True Believers, 2003). "The practice of deprogramming ... ended ... in 1995, after a young man who had been kidnapped and detained won a large judgment against the major organization promoting ... (Melton, Baumann: Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices, 2002)
 * I'd be pleased to reflect sources that attribute a different effect on the practice of deprogramming to this case. If you can help by posting such sources here on the talk page (author, title, ISBN), that would be great. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming increasingly ridiculous and almost incoherent. Jayen466 isn't interested in facts, only reinforcing his POV. Gordon Melton is a cult apologist that has received funding directly from groups called cults. Melton received $10,000 from the notorious Children of God group, funding from Ramtha to "research" that group, expert witness fees from the International Church of Christ and an all expenses paid trip to Japan courtesy of Aum. Melton is not a reliable source. Melton's declaration that "The practice of deprogramming ended" is proof that he has no credibility. Numerous press articles reflect that deprogramming has continued, on a voluntary basis with adults with some notable exceptions, involuntarily at times with children under guardian supervision. I have personally/professionally done hundreds of deprogrammings since 1995.

See the following links for some expamples:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming40.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming30.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming28.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/deprogramming/deprogramming27.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/wright/wright14.html

The Unification Church through a front organization acknowledges ongoing deprogramming in Japan, which continues to date.

See http://www.religiousfreedom.com/nwslttr/deprogramming.htmRick Alan Ross (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement in our article, and the works quoted above, explicitly refer to the situation in North America. Now, looking at the pages on your website, –
 * Your 1st source discusses the application of a deprogramming or deradicalisation process on detainees in Iraq.
 * The 2nd source refers to Australia considering a deprogamming process for militants in jails.
 * The 3rd source discusses a deprogramming case from 1982. Quotes: "Taking the unusual step of overstepping the jury, a federal judge ruled in 1984 that Eilers had been falsely imprisoned." "Joanne said she didn't plan any more deprogrammings after what happened to Bill and Sandy."
 * Quote from the 4th source (2003): "Today, few exit counselors ascribe to the once-popular strategy of "deprogramming [sic]," in which the survivor has his cult-instilled beliefs drummed out of him, forcibly and mercilessly. At best, goes the conventional wisdom now, this fighting-fire-with-fire approach leaves an individual with a slew of unresolved issues buried just below the surface. At worst, it sends that person back into the arms of the group."
 * The 5th source discusses a jailed woman's voluntary transfer to Wellspring.
 * The 6th source refers to Japan. Deprogrammings of cult members in Japan were repeatedly brought up in the US State Department's annual Religious Freedom Reports on Japan (though not the most recent one). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While we are not quoting Melton in the article, and I have no immediate intention of doing so, it is worth noting that Melton has been, and continues to be, the second-most prolific contributor of articles to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is generally considered reliable. Among others, he has written their article on AUM. How do you explain that this widely respected publisher calls on Mr Melton's services, despite your assertion that he has no credibility? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Be honest, you are not interested in the facts as you have demonstrated repeatedly. Hundreds of deprogramming cases have been done in the US since 1995. Melton is frequently funded by groups called cults, which you notably did not dispute. He is not an objective source on this subject or this article. Other sources you cite are in the same camp. "Exit Counseling" and deprogramming are essentially the same thing, an intervention designed to get someone out of a cult. There were always both voluntary and involuntary deprogrammings. You are parsing language and quotes in an attempt to mislead the public.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you do for Osho? Are you a full-time staff person assigned to Wikipedia and Internet work? Or does this represent an area that you volunteered to work on for Osho? You certainly spend a great deal of time editing at Wikipedia. It seems that Jossi has had a working relationship professionally with Prem Rawat/guru Maharaji. Just wondering what your particular niche is within Osho? Seems like this must be it, i.e. propaganda for the group using the Internet.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
This article has undue negative weight on a WP:BLP, dubious statements from dubious sources, and also false and misleading statements. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please pursue any perceived issues with sources at RS/N. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also see above comments in above subsections on this page about troubling concerns in this article. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see a single usable source given in all of the above. I found a news article where Tonkin claimed she had cooked Scott's favourite meals and gone to some trouble to rent a nice house; I'll try to find that again, and we can add it as a balancing viewpoint (or just drop the food issue altogether). Various sources have given contradictory reasons as to why Tonkin left the church; her son was reported by several sources to have said it was because another church member spurned her romantic advances. We shouldn't cite her affidavit, but I'll try to find press sources summarising her statements. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 10:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is only one small issue in what is otherwise a grossly misleading article. Anson Shupe is not a reliable objective source as you have just demonstrated. Shupe was paid by Scientology lawyer Kendrick Moxon and worked very closely with him. Shupe's writings reflect this. But in the end Jason Scott fired Kendrick Moxon and told CBS "60 Minutes" that Scientology used his lawsuit to get CAN. The settlement between Jason and I, which was predominately for additional hours of my time as a consultant, was never renegotiated or changed in any way. Moxon subsequently tried to void it and declare Scott incompetent through an effort in court. This is quite ironic considering that Moxon had sued CAN and I for not recognizing Jason Scott's right to make his own decisions.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The repeated reference to Kendrick Moxon is a red herring. The judge (John C. Coughenour) and jury – none of them Scientologists – came to their conclusions, which differ sharply from your version of events. Their verdict and judgment were upheld all the way up to the US Supreme Court. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jason Scott fired Kendrick Moxon and said that Scientology used the lawsuit to get CAN. This was further exposed when a Scientologist bought CAN's files, name and logo through the subsequent bankruptcy. All this was reported in the press. Of course Anson Shupe didn't care since Scientology was paying him through Moxon. Such facts are of little interest to you, since you are only here to use Wikipedia per your apparent job for Osho/Rajneesh.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We mention that the CAN assets were bought by a Scientologist; the article on the Cult Awareness Network also discusses this. But I agree that this aspect of the article could still do with some expansion. If you have sources to hand, please mention them here. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are parsing language and quotes form your designated sources selectively in an attempt to mislead the public. This doesn't work in the mainstream media, which has widely reported the Scott case, Scientoloyg's role and the final settlement. But apparently within Wikipedia's open source system, anonymous editors acting in the interest of their group/cult like yourself, can come here and do whatever they want if they learn to manipulate the politics and policies of this site. You are not interested in facts, just serving your group you are in Osho. It appears this may be either your Osho staff assignment or perhaps this is an area you volunteered to help the group. Much like Jossi and his work for Prem Rawat/guru Maharaji. It's a shame that Wikipedia is used in this way.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is about time you drop commenting about other editors' purported motives and focus on improving articles. In my experience, these type of comments do not produce any results whatsoever. You can take Jayen's lead, and be respectful of him and  others, has he has been of you.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an independent editor would help? I'll look over the article in the next day or so.Momento (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Momento, in what respect are you an "independent editor" Independent of what? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the same way you are Will.Momento (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And which way is that? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Able to set POV aside to make a NPOV decision or edit.Momento (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've lost track of the grammar here. Are you saying that you are able to put aside your own POV in order to make an NPOV decision? Is there any evidence of that? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems important to point out at this juncture that neither Jossi nor Jayen466 directly deny that they are here as either staffers or volunteers working by proxy on the Internet/Wikipedia for their sponsor guru groups Prem Rewat and Osho. The way in which Wikipedia can be manipulated for propaganda purposes by such anonymous editors is a serious flaw in the current open source format. This is not only a potential embarrassment that can discredit this site, but something that may cause Wikipedia to be consistently considered a less than reliable source for objective information.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Related discussion here. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

False and misleading statements at Aftermath
"whose partner Tomothy Bowles had at one time shared offices with Moxon."

It's Timoth Bowles, not "Tomothy Bowles." Bowles did not merely share offices with Moxon, he was Kendrick Moxon's law partner in their joint firm known as "Bowles and Moxon." It also should be noted that Timothy Bowles is a Scientologist that occupied his time essentially with Scientology-linked litigation.

"feeling that even though another Scientology attorney had acquired CAN's name, files and assets, he himself had received nothing from the bankruptcy."

This is historically inaccurate. Hayes bought CAN assets well after my settlement was concluded, which preceded hiring Graham Berry.

"Moxon filed unsuccessful emergency motions alleging that Scott must have been coerced, but admitted he had no proof of this."

This statement is an attempt to minimize the impact of the settlement and what Moxon actually did to destroy it. Moxon specifically filed a court action to have Jason Scott declared incompetent, and implied that Scott had been "brainwashed" into making the settlement. Moxon proposed that an attorney he selected, should become Scott's conservator and make decisions for him. Interesting considering that the whole point of the original civil rights lawsuit was supposedly to uphold the right of Jason Scott as a competent adult to make his own decisions. What the aftermath legal maneuvering demonstrates is that Scientology paid for the litigation not due to concern about Jason Scott and his rights, but rather to destroy its perceived enemies. Jason was competent only when he went along Scientology's agenda, when he chose not to he suddenly became incompetent and the alleged version of coercive persuasion.

"'it would be a mistake to assume that Scott's decision to make use of Ross' time was a vindication of Ross or his deprogramming methods..."

This is a ridiculous statement and should not be quoted here. My "deprogramming methods" were the services Jason Scott sought in the settlement. He wanted 200 hours. Again, the irony here is that it was those same services, performed for his mother, which Jason Scott sued me for in the first place. It seems pertinent to make that point here as it is a historical fact, despite the embarrassment of those concerned.

"marking the end of the cult wars, at least in North America. Controversies surrounding new religious movements have continued, but the debate has mostly moved to other arenas than the courts"

What exactly is this ridiculous and false remark doing here? "Cult wars"? The issue of responding to destructive cults is not a "war," but rather an ongoing effort to raise public awareness and hold cults accountable for their bad behavior. This did not end with the conclusion of the Scott case, but continues to this day. There have been numerous cult tragedies since the Scott case ended including, Aum gassing the Tokyo subway system, Solar Temple suicide/murder in Switzerland, "Heavens Gate" suicides in California, hundreds of Ugandans murdered through the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments and on and on we could go. Right now there are cults, cult members and leaders being exposed and criminally prosecuted throughout North America, including the House of Yahweh in Texas, Immaculate Conception Chapel and SIST Rama Behera R.C. Semanta Roy in Wisconsin, Strong City in New Mexico, Tony Alamo in Arkansas, 1 Mind Ministries in Baltimore, Followers of Christ in Oregon. All of this directly refutes this ridiculous and false statement. This ridiculous statement should be deleted.

"Following the acquisition of the CAN name and number by Scientologists, a "New CAN" was established with their backing, which serves as an information and networking center on nontraditional religions;[38] it is managed by former opponents of the "Old CAN".

This is very misleading. The so-called "New CAN" was bought by and controlled by Scientology. This has been reported by CBS "60 Minutes" and other mainstream media outlets. This fact should be clearly stated and not evaded.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Anson Shupe, expert witness
Since the focus of this article is the Jason Scott case(s), not Rick Ross, there is certainly reason to cover Anson Shupe's role as an expert witness for the prosecution. (Although, not as a coat-rack to hang criticism unrelated to the cases.) AndroidCat (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As well, in the civil court case, he was an expert witness as a sociologist, specializing in New Religious Movements. In reporting on the trials, he is not (as far as I know) an expert in legal matters, and shouldn't have any preferential treatment as a reference. AndroidCat (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Shupe is a very influential scholar in this field. According to the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, for example,

Having said that, there are dozens, if not hundreds of books covering this case. While Shupe and Darnell show up top of the list, I agree that the other ones should be evaluated as well. There is also lots in google scholar. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. An entry by Thomas Robbins on David Bromley and Anson Shupe, referencing books by David Bromley, Anson Shupe and Thomas Robbins. Obviously the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society has slacker rules than Wikipedia about horn-tooting. Regardless, he's not a legal expert, and we should be careful not to assign too much weight to experts when they're outside of their field. AndroidCat (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on AndroidCat, Stephen A. Kent says the same about Shupe's standing, and you know it. And Shupe was an expert witness at that trial. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Anson Shupe is an expert on New Religious Movements. Anson Shupe is not an expert on the law and legal cases. Do you acknowledge the difference? AndroidCat (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Shupe is an acknowledged expert on the anti-cult movement, and as such is well qualified to comment on key legal cases in this field. If you want a legal expert, Kendrick Moxon is your man -- he is a Dr. jur. We can use one of the papers where he was a co-author, if you like. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Moxon immediately fails WP:RS by not being a third party—which is also a concern about Shupe. AndroidCat (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have sources authored by other legal experts commenting on the nicer points of the case, by all means let's use them. I'm not aware of any right now. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is "Deadly Cults" by Snow, an anti-cult writer with law enforcement experience. Snow refers to Scott allegedly being held "handcuffed and gagged for five days". Is that correct? I always thought the cuffs were used for transport only. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This dude, Bullis, has all the right qualifications -- degrees in sociology, law, and theology. But he does get a basic fact wrong, asserting that the sons joined the church against the will of their mother. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dialogue
AndroidCat, how do you propose we give this dialogue then? I thought we can only give it either verbatim, as quoted personal speech, or summarised, as indirect speech. Do you have any other ideas? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Meta-issue: Court documents and reliable sourcing
Please see the topic for discussion at Talk:Scientology. Thank you. AndroidCat (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Verbatium quote
page 26. So. Is it a quote, is it a copyvio, or can it be dissected as loaded language? AndroidCat (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a verbatim quote. These are the differences between the wordings: I suggest if we need quotation marks, we should put them around "a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming". Instead of "horrified by" or "moved by", perhaps "having learnt" or "apparently struck by" would do? Or how about "The jury, apparently struck by the very physical nature of the abduction and deprogramming attempt, awarded ..." I am open to other suggestions. As for "loaded language", note that this is not a tabloid source; both the book's editor and the author of the quoted section in it are top scholars, writing for a respected academic publisher. I am sure they would argue that they were merely describing the jury's apparent state of mind, and the details of the abduction as given in court testimony. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The jury, apparently moved by the details of what had been a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming attempt, awarded ... (what we had)
 * "The jury, apparently horrified by the details of what had been a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming attempt", awarded ... (what you changed it to)
 * The jury, apparently quite horrified at the details of what was a very physical kidnapping and deprogramming, awarded ... (source wording)

As for WP:C, this says, "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context." I could not find anything definite under plagiarism and fair use to indicate how much reformulation is necessary; I thought as long as there weren't more than four or five words in succession taken verbatim from a source, i.e. as long as it was clear that there had been no copy-and-pasting of whole intact sentences, we were okay. If you are aware of a policy page that gives more detailed guidance in this regard, please let me know, so I can read up on it. Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've started a thread at the WP:C talk page to get some more input. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reworded based on input received there. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallgaher et al.
Here some further publications describing the demise of CAN as marking the end of an era in North America:


 * Jeffrey Kaplan, Heléne Lööw, The Cultic Milieu
 * Phillip Charles Lucas, Thomas Robbins, New Religious Movements in the Twenty-first Century
 * Jeffrey Kaplan, "The Fall of the Wall" (Nova Religio)
 * Shupe speaks of "countermovement collapse"
 * Paula Nesbitt, Religion and Social Policy
 * Lewis has it as the Defeat of Anticultism in the Courts. Along with the U.S. courts' decision to no longer accept testimony based on the 1970s brainwashing hypothesis, it's widely seen as a watershed. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)