SPs ‘r’ US apologises for inappropriate and defamatory material

The views expressed after Mike Garde was blocked were inappropriate and I can confirm that he is a genuine campaigner against Scientology. He has a long history and good character for fighting cultism.

Pete Griffiths

 

My reply published this evening:

Mike Garde Pete thanks for posting this. As you now know I did not know you had published this apology till I was able to reconnect to the group. You know also that I do not intend commenting here other than to check if further abuse has come my way. I should point out though as one of the managers of the site that you still have a responsibility to address further abuse. I bring to your attention the fact that only 2 minutes after you published this apology John McGhee left this comment: “what is the basket-case doing this time?” Then on the same day a week ago he seemed to suggest you were not sincere in this apology? “The title of the post, about Mike being a genuine campaigner, was a wee in-house joke. It was originally in quotations. The man is a nut job and he bombarding members here with his insane ramblings.” As you know I was not able to comment here till now. I would be grateful if you could address this abuse asap.

It was clear that though Pete Griffith is facing major legal threats due to the bizarre policy of engaging Scientologists in public. He when it came down to it was not sincere about upholding my good name. I have been personally and professionally attacked on Facebook. It is the position of DI that we will publish some of that information here as any reasonable attempt to raise this isue is not moderated. Pete Griffith has such a need for celebrity he has totally bowed to the mob rather than protect a campaigner against Scientology. Also it is clear that John and himself are joined at the hip so he is not able to moderate or act independently.

Tuesday February 24th.

Mike Garde This what Pete published this morning very early just in time for your west coast coolers. . ” (People on th eWest Coast of the USA.)

Pete Griffiths 24 February 06:27 “I’m trying to smooth ruffled feathers.  He has threatened me and John with legal action over the posts made here.”

 

I was asking him to to stop the abuse but he did not have the guts to tell people to stop, so joined the crucify him brigade. Here is our final correspondence. “What can I do,” was the refrain, doing a Pontius Pilate and washing his hands knowing full well that all of the comments were malicious. His behaviour is just like the Scientologists he despises.


On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Mike Garde wrote:

This will define clearly how this issue is addressed. Pete you either tell the truth now or never.


M Having asked him to moderate he replies: From: Pete Griffiths Sent: 24/02/2015 07:19
To: Mike Garde
Subject: Re: FW: [SPs ‘r’ US] Pete, please let me start out by saying I…

“The truth? If you can’t handle a group dynamic (i.e. people disagreeing with you) then leave the group and everyone in peace, including me.”

 

He had published an apology and then let John McGhee go a head and immediately contradict what he had said. I only found this post a week later. He has been willing to have filth and bile and innuendo to be released and refused to act. Then he made it appear it was my problem that I could not handle all the rough and tumble. He is allowing me to be defamed and there are now over 200 comments in a thread which was about my being a real campaigner against Scientology. It is clearly an orchestrated campaign of vilification

 

So I wrote, “The truth is you are a coward and when asked to define your position by someone you are so pathetic you ask what book are you reading? (That was his next post.) It appears you have no respect for anything other than your own celebrity. I thought you were a serious campaigner but when given the chance to answer the questions you allowed me to be further ridiculed and taunted.


Let me outline your future.
1. Like a lemming you are attached to John. He is drawing you into a dead end.
2. You are currently in the circuit court but the Scientologists want you in the High Court.
Unless you detach from John you are going to find your bank balance likely very low and it is going to go deeply into minus.
On that note I will give you time to reflect before ending any contact with you.
Enough is Enough.

 


M” John McGhee is clearly in touch with the moderator and unless Pete is the one who has breached my confidential requests.. From: shibernicis@gmail.com
Sent: 24/02/2015 09:41
To: mike.gardedi@gmail.com
Subject: Fw: [SPs ‘r’ US] Pete, please let me start out by saying I…

John McGhee:


“Yes Mike, you run along now like a good lad and cry to anyone who’ll listen. Everybody is bored of you now. However, get this clear, Pete is not a lemming to me, I do my own thing, Pete does his. I do things he’d never do, and he does things in turn which I would not. Yes it’s true Pete needs to be more honest with regard to how he feels about you, he likes to play the politician, but let me give you a hint as to how he feels; it’s much the same as me. Now go away you pathetic fool.”

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

 

My final reply to John:

 

From: Mike Garde
Sent: 24/02/2015 10:18
To: shibernicis@gmail.com
Cc: pete@exscientologistsireland.net;
Subject: RE: [SPs ‘r’ US] Pete, please let me start out by saying I…

“John you are deeply disturbed and up till now you have bulldozed your way through life. All I have done is burst your bubble. The bubble of abusive campaigning. I wish you well and hope you find a way to find healing for all the damage in your life. Thank you for assisting DI in regard to our work with Tony Quinn. I will not defend myself in regard to your incendiary and vicious innuendos on Facebook.* You know my record but because of the fact I named your inappropriate form of protest you wish to destroy me no less than Scientologists wish to do with their enemies. You decided to make me your enemy, but you will remain a friend till you catch up with me. I assume as Pete has sent this onto you that his period of reflection will be short lived. So it is time to conclude contact with you both.”

Kind Regards
M

* John McGhee placed a highly offensive image on Facebook suggesting I would not comment at all on Facebook whereas what I meant was I would not be commenting in response to John’s abusive statements until the end of the Court process. I will be exercising my right to respond to an orchestrated campaign by those brought onto defame and attack me, when the intention of the post was to vindicate me.

John McGhee's photo.

 

13 Responses

  1. Suppressing and censoring Mike Garde as he sought to call for a limit on peaceful legitimate protest was a big own goal by Ex Scientologists which as collection of concerned individuals is clearly not under a marshalling or disciplinary control. Alas Scientology has that control for all the wrong reasons.

    Like

  2. Censorship and name calling are tactics used by Scientology not ones to be used in response which is totally counter-productive because when you do so you start loosing the argument and moral high ground.

    Like

  3. Also you and John do not need to wait till your court case to meet up with myself and Denis to reach a settlement around our dispute.

    Like

  4. No, I was holding John back but he broke free and rushed to the keyboard and started typing before I could stop him.

    1. What this suggests is that you were in fact intimidated and the role of being a moderator was not confidential and you could not exercise your free will. This is a very serious admission. You appear to have been under severe pressure and undue influence. It means that the group became a vehicle for revenge for my expressing the view that John’s behaviour was unacceptable.

    So what is it? A statement about your anti-cult work or an orchestrated campaign of vilification? Mother would like to know.

    You have already confessed that you were not in control of the group and so your apology was totally hollow and became a farce. I have prima face evidence that a campaign to neutralise and attack me was set in place, culminating in one person actually abusing a site Cultbusters resulting in it being closed down. In a petulant rage this person removed my right to ever return to that group. As the evidence mounted and people like Jane defamed me publically about my South African roots, she seemed surprised I would totally annihilate the stench of her putrid accusations. So in desperation after you walked, a cabal got together even as they were further abusing me in public. They attempted to use private messaging and called on me to fall on my sword. This culminated in this statement at 13:06 when I refused to be intimidated. These messages will be retained as evidence.

    Andrea Garner (friends with Pete Griffiths) mentioned you in a comment in SPs ‘r’ US.

    Andrea Garner
    26 February at 13:06

    Message to Mike Garde and members of SPs.

    Mike, the decision has been taken by the admins of this group to remove you as a member of SPs ‘R’ Us. I regret that we have had to take this decision but we cannot permit the continued upheaval to the group engendered by your feud with certain members which has led to a highly toxic environment here over the last several days, in addition to members leaving the group.

    Andrea, Beth and Brian (admins).

    I then started receiving a torrent of support as the enormity of the the decision of cutting me off became apparent namely that a group with the desire to make the abuses of Scientology known was itself abusing one of its members having started with an insincere apology and then censuring free speech.
    The group which is open was closed of in three ways.
    1. I can’t see the site.
    2. I can’t post and all my posts have been deleted. This is a serious abuse of my rights.
    3. I can’t leave a comment.

    I understand that the Brian concerned in moderation who shows a rather equivocal moral quality in all his posts is this gentleman. This again was sent to me.
    https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Brian_Collinge

    I wish to thank the number of people from around the world who have communicated support. I intend to publish all the comments and to seek retain as much as possible of the record of what happened.
    As you know DI is not a Christian site but one which has people who are believers and those who are not.
    I do not hold any any grudges against anyone but that does not mean I will not pursue by all legal means anyone who has done damage so they know what damage they have done. I am not legion and so I do forgive but premature forgiveness is not good for the soul.

    DI wrote: “The injunction mentions only harassment.”
    Pete Griffith:

    You have obviously not read the injunction.

    http://donegalnews.com/2015/01/frank-shortts-daughter-gets-order-against-former-fellow-scientologists/

    Just before Christmas there was an ex parte injunction granted to Zabrina and in the High Court to quote the court reports

    A DAUGHTER of the Donegal nightclub owner who was paid compensation of €4.5 million for a miscarriage of justice, has claimed she is being harassed by two former members of the Church of Scientology.

    Currently Zabrina has the stronger position as the word ex parte implies. Currently her terms of reference are what defines this case. It is one sided by definition. She wants to throw the kitchen sink at the two of you. She wants to claim it is more than harassment, and is actually assault.
    1. First point we note is the judge has taken the case from the High Court down to the circuit court.
    Also though you have been in the court room three times no one has been heard yet. They are making a case and the judge has asked you on a number of occasions to settle this civil matter s she can proceed with your case. When asked about it two weeks before the last hearing you told me it was in hand. However, on the day it was clear that your side had not made contact with the Scientologist representatives. It was my impression that contact took place at that stage and hopefully the terms of a settlement can be agreed in regard to protesting and the limits of such which all can agree on. If so the judge will then give the terms of the settlement to all and all the other stuff about assault will go out the window. If there is no agreement and John says what he was doing is totally appropriate the judge will actually hear the case and will then impose her own ruling. If John refuses to accept her ruling he will be in contempt, will likely be given a night to consider his position in a cell and then like the water protestors will be sentenced if he does not comply. He is unrepresented, but in your case you have been of the opinion you have no issue with the terms of the temporary injunction and will comply and hopefully move onto your own case. It is imperative that you clearly state in advance your willingness to set the boundaries of protest. I gave some ideas which I talked to you about privately and you seemed to see a need to come up with a new strategy to deal with what has become a slightly jaded exercise of standing outside a building where they hide or do not turn up when you protest. It is absolutely important to act on legal advice and though you are friends it is clear you have different views on how to proceed.

    Sabrina Collins Shortt (36), daughter of Frank Shortt, former owner of the Point Inn nightclub in Inishowen, alleges she was intimidated while handing out literature on drugs in Dublin city centre in the run up to Christmas.

    Generally a woman does feel threatened if a man comes to close to her and violates her personal space. However, you have both observed the injunction and have no intention to violate it. Agree to terms and move on. Your focus must be the defamation act and nothing else.

    Ms Shortt is a member of the Church of Scientology who told the High Court in Dublin this week she was verbally abused and intimidated while distributing an anti drugs booklet around Parnell Square on December 20 last.

    Most people I have talked to who are not involved with Scientology do regard this as intimidatory, but as I said earlier if a settlement is reached that is water under the bridge and becomes irrelevant. The more you contest the situation the more room you give the Scientologists to get the judge to intervene

    The mother of one claims two former Scientologists, who are now vocal in their disapproval of the church, are responsible for the harassment and she’s secured a temporary court order against them.

    She has a right to bring the case, but you can remove its power by coming up with a solution which in no way stops you protesting or raising the issues concerning the cultist nature of the group.

    One John McGhee of Armstrong Road, Clara, County Offaly is alleged to have breached that order. Appearing in court today (Monday) he agreed to abide by its terms and effectively stay away from Sabrina Collins Shortt and another church goer.

    You have not been named as breaching the order, and John at first thought this was con job, but since he has confirmed the injunction is genuine has abided by it.

    He said when he was originally served with the order last month he binned it claiming that the Church of Scientology has previously served ‘fraudulent documentation’ in what he called a ‘dark history of misleading people’.

    This is the position as I outlined it above. In summary the harassment injunction can be lifted if you have a settlement.

    Like

  5. “It was clear that though Pete Griffith is facing major legal threats due to the bizarre policy of engaging Scientologists in public.”

    Last time I checked I did not have a policy of engaging Scientologists in public largely as they refuse to speak to me. I have offered on numerous occasions to address them as a group but been turned down each time.

    “He when it came down to it was not sincere about upholding my good name. I have been personally and professionally attacked on Facebook.”

    Personally and professionally? Golly, that must have been tough.

    “Pete Griffith has such a need for celebrity he has totally bowed to the mob rather than protect a campaigner against Scientology. Also it is clear that John and himself are joined at the hip so he is not able to moderate or act independently.”

    If I lose my celebrity my bank balance will suffer! I have never had sexual relations with John McGhee. Or have I?

    “I was asking him to to stop the abuse but he did not have the guts to tell people to stop, so joined the crucify him brigade. Here is our final correspondence. “What can I do,” was the refrain, doing a Pontius Pilate and washing his hands knowing full well that all of the comments were malicious. His behaviour is just like the Scientologists he despises.”

    This is ironic as I have been asking Mike Garde to stop saying things about an ongoing court case and feeding OSA. I did not ask, “What can I do?” but asked him how it proposed that I stop people from having opinions that he disagreed with.

    “He had published an apology and then let John McGhee go ahead and immediately contradict what he had said.”

    No, I was holding John back but he broke free and rushed to the keyboard and started typing before I could stop him.

    “He is allowing me to be defamed and there are now over 200 comments in a thread which was about my being a real campaigner against Scientology. It is clearly an orchestrated campaign of vilification.”

    So what is it? A statement about your anti-cult work or an orchestrated campaign of vilification? Mother would like to know.

    “The injunction mentions only harassment.”

    You have obviously not read the injunction.

    Like

  6. Pete what you do not get is I have clearly stated I see it as harassment. I do not need to wait till a judge defines it to give my opinion. By the way the Scientologists claim it was assault I totally disagree with them. The injunction mentions only harassment. What would you call your Facebook treatment of me? HARASSMENT

    How did you form that opinion? As you know you have never been in a court before.
    Now do you get it?

    It’s as if the Scientologists took you to court accusing you of running a Mexican drug cartel and supporting paedophile priests and we said, “Oh yes, but he runs a drug cartel in Mexico and supports paedophile priests.”

    No there is no comparison. The Scientologists accused me of doing these things, and it was I who was trying to take them to court. I attempted to take a case for criminal libel and asked the Gardai to take the case. Unfortunately, the DPP turned it down. I have had Gerard Ryan placing that in every school I visited. He even tried to bring it up in the press release before your conference.
    This laughable idea that OSA is taking note of my comments is laughable. They are already in the court reports and the Judges comments already. We talked about this and you agreed with me privately, that you needed to end this lunacy and just settle that issue and proceed with the substantial and in my view very strong case you have for defamation. That John would incite ex Scientologists and others to gang up on me on FB is so pathetic. I am only protecting my name from people who are supposed to be my friends and who I have helped all my life.

    Now do you get it?

    No as it is as apples and oranges.

    Like

  7. “There Pete was acting as moderator and because he did not not agree with my calling John McGhee’s actions harassment they said if I commented on what had been reported they would censor me on their site. ” MG

    Mike, you still don’t get it. John and I are in court accused of harassment AND assault. For you to say that we did harass the Scientologists is pre-empting the judge’s decision. She will decide whether or not we harassed anyone, not you. NOT YOU!

    Now do you get it?

    It’s as if the Scientologists took you to court accusing you of running a Mexican drug cartel and supporting paedophile priests and we said, “Oh yes, but he runs a drug cartel in Mexico and supports paedophile priests.”

    Now do you get it?

    Like

  8. The situation is complicated. You have a difficult job and I respect that.

    Like

  9. Anon you may be aware that there is a legal case for defamation going on in Dublin, involving Zabrina Collins and Pete Griffith.
    This article with my commentary sums up the position:
    https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/zabrina-collins-part-spokesperson-part-stormtrooper-for-scientology-phoenix-february-2015/#more-14561

    We note that the article claims that the case brought by Zabrina Collins was for assault. However, it was for harassment and not for assault and the judge sought to get that sorted as originally the Pete Griffith case for defamation was to be heard in October but was deferred till January. As you can see in the article the defamation case was looking bad for Zabrina as the issues were pretty clear. However, this went pear shaped when in their enthusiasm to alert the public about the cult the Ex Scientologists actually strayed into the public domain which they should have kept away from till the court case was heard. Not in discussing the events in a public court which have been reported in the media, but rather the actions in the court in October and since this case was first started in 2013 in public. They continued to engage with Zabrina when it would have been wise to cease all activities till the case was over.

    The result was a case for harassment. You could hardly expect the Scientologists to sit on their hands? This for them was the road to total freedom. The judge wanted to get both parties to agree to differ, but as yet this has not happened. Clearly the judge would like to set up a code of protest. Simple things like agreeing to not go near the Scientologists home, or places of employment. Nor entering their places of employment and keep away from the entrance to the Mission property in Middle Abbey St. and protesting across the road so there is no bumping into people by accident or design. Looking at the videos I would have thought it would be easy to agree to this and allow the substantial case about defamation to proceed. Now with the presence of Hodkin the Scientology lawyer who I encountered 20 years ago it looks like the Scientologists are trying to make this an assault case. What we have is zealous cultists and anti cultists in a case of handbags, not assault.

    Another important point is these issues are a matter of a civil rather than a criminal nature. So talk about assault are merely the natural expression of a contested zone between two groups. 1. A group of deeply influenced Scientologists who believe their actions are necessary to be faithful to Scientology. 2. On the other side are Ex cultists who believe that they have a mission to use every method they can to attack the cult. What the ordinary person sees as harassment they see as the end justifies the means.

    Anyone, however, who opposes their strategy who is equally opposed to Scientology is regarded as an enemy and is subject to virulent attack. The clear strategy the Scientologists are following is to try to change this from a case for harassment to one for criminal assault. This case has not been heard yet but all the evidence I have seen points to the need to define the limits of protest?

    However, why let these actions get in the way of a clear defamation case?

    We will find out soon enough.

    The reaction you have being reading has spilt over from Facebook. There Pete was acting as moderator and because he did not not agree with my calling John McGhee’s actions harassment they said if I commented on what had been reported they would censor me on their site. They duly cut me off as they could not abide anyone saying that how they were treating people on the streets of Dublin was not acceptable. So now we have the cult of anti- cultism. Virulent claims that I had personally attacked women in private communications. One is a south African who DI tried to assist in 2012. Pete had all the information and I had asked him to use his role as a moderator to intervene but instead this morning he claimed I was suing him and John. I was asking him to protect my right to participate on the FB without being subject to virulent personal abuse. As you can see John is about to face a court for his role in totally derailing a court case which was so clearly a straight forward Defamation case by his ill considered actions. He is pouring down abuse day and night as her hates that I call what he does wrong. It is like the current water protests he is one of the guys who will not stay 20 metres from the workers. He will jump into the hole where they work. You remember how effective he was in regard to our protest against Tony Quinn. He was accused then of going over the top. We defended his right over 50 metres to protest. It was the TQ goons who nearly put his life at risk. Some thought he had gone over the top. What he does is excellent, but he needs to do it within the law and without taking the view my view right or wrong.

    Like

  10. To anon,

    I agree with the first part of your reply that more attention needs to brought upon $cientology but my reply was to this post about how the poster assumed a comment made by a group admin was a personal apology to him from the group. It was not. Hell it wasn’t even an apology from him it was a statement. No where in the statement do you see the words “sorry” or “apologize”. Personal abuse removed.

    Like

  11. To B
    I am very happy to see people demonstrate and call attention to Scientology. It’s an on-going battle. I read Dialogue posts regularly to get the latest news and like you I want to see positive action taken to close down cults. It is a stressful undertaking. The law is the ass and needs changing. Your reaction to Dialogues advice is very harsh.

    Like

  12. DI Moderation: First unlike FB where the group SPs ‘r’ US allows people to attack fellow members without any moderation. It allows abusive language and it is more like a out of control construct. We will edit this comment and will allow any views to be expressed if done so without vitriol. If you continue in this vein we will move comments to our commenting section, and if you do not desist all future comments will be removed.

    You’re an ass. That isn’t an apology, it’s a statement. Also it’s not from the group, it’s from 1 person. You’re an ass and everyone is over your xxxxxx. Get a xxxxx clue.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: