THE TOP EXEC IN OSA BLEW DUE TO OSA'S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
On The Bridge?
|Anton Lorien||KTL CLAY TABLE PROCESSING||Auditor UK 315||2004-01-01|
|Anton Lorien||HUBBARD KEY TO LIFE COURSE||Source 175||2006-02-01|
|Anton Lorien||OBJECTIVES||The Auditor UK 344||2009-11-01|
MUSICIANS from East Grinstead are helping to support brave members of Britain's armed forces.
Anton Lorien and John Simons, who live in Badgers Way, have co-written a song entitled We Are The Brits in support of the charity Afghan Heroes.
Songwriters Anton Lorien (front) and John Simons
.......Others haven’t been so lucky. One of the Ship Engineers was severely disaffected with Captain Love Boat after several run-ins with him. He became increasingly enturbulated and was not sleeping. He was put under 24 hour watch with full time guards and video cameras in his room. He was not handled with standard tech and ended up committing suicide by hanging himself in the shower with a sheet. The entire incident was covered up so as not to create a “flap.” False information was given to the authorities.Carol Miles, the Public Officer and public face of the Freewinds has disappeared. I guess, like Heber, nobody dares ask where she is. In fact, she was being “handled” under the brilliant guidance of CO CMO Ship (Sue Price) with her special style of “executive C/Sing”. Carol’s “handlings” didn’t go well. She made threats and became a security risk. And what happens to inmates on the prison ship when they are too hot to handle? They get shipped off to the prison colony – the RPF in CLO ANZO, in Sydney.Quite a number of “problem” staff have been routed to the ANZO RPF. It is thought to be so remote that anyone sent there has effectively been “disappeared”. Like the 3 Gold staff who were banished to the ANZO RPF after they pissed off Dear Leader. Those 3 (Karl Whitcher, Kip Engen and Nicolai Ciferrelli) were assigned to do the RPF twice through. They have been there since 2004. One of them completed the first time through last year – imagine 6 years of sec checking, FPRD and TRD and now having to do it all over again!So, this is where Carol Miles is. She joined other “security risks” banished to the prison colony – including the former IG MAA Chris Guider who had fallen from grace when he refused to comply with an order from Miscavige to hit a Gold staff member with his swagger stick and the ex-RTC Rep FSO who knew all about Miscavige’s involvement in the McPherson matter
Hello, my name is George Baillie, and here is a little bit about myself:
I got into Scientology in September, 1970. I was on Academy Level 0, as a public and joined staff in the Toronto Organization in May 1971. I continued my auditor training but as a member of the Technical Training Corps in that organization. I trained up to Class 5 Graduate and audited 55-60 hours per week. I went to the Apollo in Sept 1973 and did the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course and other courses. I graduated and returned to Toronto in January 1975. I stayed on staff until May 1983. I have been a full time Field Staff Member and Field Auditor since that time. I have also operated a Scientology Mission in Halifax, Nova Scotia from 1988 until 1994. My case level is OT 8.
My Success in Scientology
I trained under L. Ron Hubbard on the Sea Organization Motor Vessel, Apollo and learned an incredible amount about counseling a pre-clear. The competence I gained from this and Scientology helped me in every area of my life.
It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members
No. It's appealing to lazy people (like me) or people who don't want to wrestle with their technology. They pay a premium (a stupid tax, sort of)
It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
Yes, they're striving to 'Clear' the planet, and create a new civilisation.
Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
Yes. Same goes for Miscavige, who carried the torch.
Sort of, but : no. Neither Woz nor Jobs were non-accountable, they have a board of directors and shareholders! They're scrutinised like a mo-fo. Yes, Jobs had adulation, but for good reason.
It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds recruit people.
Yes, everything is about making money and recruiting new people.
Its wealth does not benefit its members or society.
Rank-and-file scientologists are financially raped, and society is 'blessed' with suicides etc.
Apple has piles of cash, this benefits future research and development, and their stock price benefits their shareholders. Apple employees get paid wages, which they don't (and can't) 'donate' back to the company.
By Marc Horne
Last updated at 4:47 PM on 7th August 2011
Suspicious: Prime Minister Harold Wilson wanted to keep track of Scientologists
The Church of Scientology was considered such a threat to the UK that in 1975 the Government put its members under secret surveillance, according to newly released files.
Previously classified documents reveal that Ministers wanted to undermine and discredit the group because it was said to be ‘mafia-like’ and its activities ‘harmful and evil’.
They believed senior Scientologists were inflicting ‘barbaric’ punishments on followers and drove them away from their families.
The papers show the Government held clandestine meetings to discuss how to reduce the activities of Scientologists in the UK, which included moves to tax the church’s income and turn down visa applications from foreign members.
Today, the Church of Scientology attracts a celebrity following, particularly among Hollywood’s elite. Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes and John Travolta are among its supporters.
However, it has been claimed it is a cult that defrauds its followers by charging them exorbitant fees.
The documents, contained in secret files on Scientology and placed in the National Archives, reveal that in July 1975, the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins hosted a summit on how best to rid Britain of the group.
Secret base: Scientology's British headquarters at Saint Hill, East Grinstead, Sussex
Ministers of Harold Wilson’s Labour Government agreed to begin undermining the group, and a 1976 document entitled Action To Curb Scientologists reads: ‘Police forces should build up as detailed a composite picture as possible of the organisation’s activities.’
Founding father: L Ron Hubbard, creator of the Church of Scientology
Scientology, founded by American sci-fi author L. Ron Hubbard in 1954, was the subject of much scepticism at the time. A 1968 exclusion order, based on the idea that followers of the so-called religion were ‘socially harmful’, banned foreign members from entering the UK.
In 1975, internal correspondence from the Home Office said: ‘The Church of Scientology does not merely persuade people to part with their money. It is a harmful movement with an evil reputation.’
It classified the group as ‘an organisation designed to make money, and perhaps also to gain power’ which targeted ‘the anxious, the lonely, the inadequate, the credulous and deluded’.
The papers added: ‘It is obtaining large sums of money for its courses on the strength of wild claims that they will cure all sorts of physical and mental ills.’
Further Government material said to be based on Scientology documents claimed there was evidence of abuse.
It says: ‘Members have been imprisoned for 48 hours in a hatch which was too small to allow them to lie down or stand up and a water hose was frequently turned on them.
'Others have been ordered to work for 48 hours in the bowels of a ship in darkness, chipping away rust with a 15-minute break every six hours.’
Prominent members: Tom Cruise and wife Katie Holmes are both Scientologists
One police report sent to Scottish Office Ministers noted: ‘The organisation is mafia-like in its hold on adherents and rarely, if ever, does one relinquish voluntarily his membership.’
The Church of Scientology sent The Mail on Sunday a seven-page response denying the alleged abuses and providing 45 pages of additional information.
Spokesman Graeme Wilson said the archive papers were a ‘snapshot’ of ‘government harassment’, adding: ‘The Government of the United Kingdom owes the Church of Scientology an apology for this atrocious treatment.’
Ex-Scientologist sues the cult for loss of girlfriend and business
A businessman is suing the Church of Scientology for hundreds of thousands of pounds, claiming that he lost his girlfriend and business after she became indoctrinated by the controversial self-styled church.
David Craig, who at one time joined the Scientologists, claims that he was persuaded to pay out more than £170,000 to the "spiritual cult" after his partner, Irina Glaser, was recruited by Scientologists. When, however, Mr Craig threatened to fight for custody of their infant son, he claims that Scientologists told him he would be expelled if he did not use their own judicial system to determine the case. The Scientologists did not wish to use what they referred to as "wog courts" (a derogatory term for the mainstream legal system), according to court documents seen by The Independent on Sunday.
The 48-year-old, from Lyndhurst, Hampshire, eventually left the church in 2004, according to court papers. Now his impending High Court case threatens to expose the inner workings of the notoriously secretive organisation. Last week an Australian senator labelled Scientology a "criminal organisation", and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd hinted at his support for an inquiry into the organisation when he said: "I share some of those concerns."
In France, Scientology is currently embroiled in a landmark case where it has been accused of ruining lives and illegally prescribing drugs. The German government has recently moved to ban the organisation.
Founded by the science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard in 1954, Scientology now claims millions of supporters across the world, with the Hollywood stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta among famous devotees. Scientologists, who believe humans are descended from a race of aliens, claim that they can purify the human mind through a process called "auditing" or counselling.
Mr Craig claims that Ms Glaser joined the Scientologists after she attended a psychic fair in December 1999. Ms Glaser, who allegedly had "mental health issues", was attracted by the organisation's claim that it could cure all mental illnesses and that conventional psychiatry did not work. For several days afterwards the pair were allegedly "inundated" with calls from the Scientology mission in Poole, Dorset, in order to "encourage them to join the cult". In January 2000 the couple attended the mission and, after a "personal efficiency test", were told that auditing would rid Ms Glaser of her illness. She then "followed their advice and instruction", giving up her medication and undertaking a series of expensive courses. During 2001 she "immersed" herself in the organisation, eventually joining the staff at its East Grinstead headquarters in Sussex. She cut off almost anyone she was unable to persuade to join the church.
Mr Craig says he was "persuaded to give substantial sums of money to the cult" during 2001 and 2002 for Ms Glaser's treatment, his own auditing and the "work of the cult". But when he became "more concerned about the conduct of Irina Glaser" he told Scientologists at the Poole mission that he was prepared to go to court to fight for custody of their six-year-old son. Mr Craig was told by the Scientologists that he should use "the cult's own 'court'", the claim states.
After leaving the church in 2004, Mr Craig was told that he was expelled from the organisation because he had involved it in court hearings about his son. It is understood the boy now lives with his father. Mr Craig, who declined to comment, is claiming compensation for the loss of earnings and also the loss of his business. The church had told him not to challenge the loss of his business franchises in 2002, which he claims were worth £750,000. He is also claiming for legal fees.
The businessman claims that while he was "under the actual undue influence" of the church he also paid out £170,000 in fees and donations. Although £30,000 of this was repaid by the church, according to the court papers, he is now demanding the balance of £140,000.
Ms Glaser is believed to be a member of the church still. No date has yet been set for the full hearing. Mr Craig's solicitor, Clare Kirby, declined to comment.
A Church of Scientology spokeswoman said yesterday: "It is a nuisance, because it attempts to reopen something which was fully resolved in 2007. As far as we are concerned, it is in breach of the agreement Mr Craig made then. At a time when our church is enjoying unprecedented growth it is not unexpected that some disgruntled or self-serving individuals might seek to profit from our expansion, or for other reasons try to cause disruption."
DAVID CRAIG v. IRINA GLASER, 07 December 2004, Sheriff Principal Sir Stephen S.T. Young
SHERIFFDOM OF GRAMPIAN HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS AT ABERDEEN
| || |
in the cause
Pursuer and Respondent
Defender and Appellant
Act: Mrs Rowena McIntosh, solicitor, McIntosh McTaggart, Aberdeen
Alt: Mr Gareth Masson, solicitor, Adam Cochran, Aberdeen
Aberdeen: December 2004
The sheriff principal, having resumed consideration of the cause, refuses the appeal and adheres to the interlocutor of the sheriff dated 27 August 2004 under deletion where they twice appear of the words and figures "by 8 October 2004" and under deletion also of the words "on joint motion, sists the cause for the reports to become available"; reserves meantime the question of the expenses of the appeal and appoints parties to be heard thereon at Aberdeen Sheriff Court on 9th December 2004 at 2.15 pm.
 The parties in this case are the parents of a child Cameron who was born in England on 30 August 2002. They are not married. In terms of crave 1 the pursuer and respondent seeks to have the defender and appellant interdicted from removing the child from his care and control or furth of this sheriffdom without his express written permission or by further order of the court. In terms of craves 2 and 3 he asks the court to find and declare that he is the father of the child and to find that he is entitled to parental rights and responsibilities in relation to him. And in terms of crave 4 he asks the court to make an order to the effect that the child should be required to reside with him.
 In article 2 of the condescendence it is averred that the habitual residence of the child is with the defender at an address in Dorset. This at once raises two questions, namely (1) what jurisdiction this court has to grant the interdict sought or to make a residence order in relation to the child (both of which would be Part I orders within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1986), and (2) how it comes about that the pursuer, whose address is in Aberdeen, is seeking to have the defender interdicted from removing the child from his care and control or furth of this sheriffdom.
 Neither of these questions is satisfactorily addressed in the pursuer's pleadings. In particular, although they are replete with allegations about how unfit the defender is to care for the child, the pursuer's averments do not explain the history of the parties' relationship since the birth of the child or how it comes about that, despite the averment about his habitual residence, he is apparently in the care of the pursuer at his home in Aberdeen. But it was explained during the hearing of the appeal, and I did not understand there to be any dispute, that after the birth of the child the parties had lived together as a family in England until March 2004. They had then separated and the child had remained in the care of the defender, the pursuer thereafter having contact with him on a regular basis. In particular, on 28 July 2004 (or so I have noted it, although I think the correct date may have been about 21 July 2004)) the pursuer had contact with the child overnight. But, instead of returning him to the defender the next day, he took him from Dorset to Aberdeen without the defender's consent. It was said that there had previously been a discussion between the parties in the course of which they had agreed in principle that the pursuer should have residential contact with the child. In light of the pursuer's removal of the child to Aberdeen, the defender indicated that she would collect the child in a week's time and treat that week as a period of residential contact. On 9 August 2004 she went to the pursuer's home in Aberdeen, removed the child and took him back to her own home in Dorset. But she brought him back to Scotland to attend a child welfare hearing at this court on 27 August 2004 and since then the child has been in the care of the pursuer at his home in Aberdeen.
 In the defences it is admitted that the child's habitual residence is with the defender at her home in Dorset. Even if this had not been admitted, it seems to me that the effect of section 41 of the Family Law Act 1986 would have been that the child would be treated as continuing to be habitually resident in England for a period of one year after he was removed by the pursuer from the care of the defender without her consent and taken to his home in Aberdeen.
 In answer 2 it is admitted that this court has jurisdiction and, when he came to address me, the defender's solicitor drew attention to section 6(e) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907. This provides that any action competent in the sheriff court may be brought within the jurisdiction of the sheriff where the action is for interdict against an alleged wrong being committed or threatened to be committed within the jurisdiction. But this provision is expressly stated to be subject to Chapter III of Part I of the 1986 Act which includes section 8 to 12 inclusive of the Act. In its application to the sheriff court, section 12 provides that, notwithstanding that any other court, whether within or outside Scotland, has jurisdiction to entertain an application for a Part I order, the sheriff shall have jurisdiction to entertain such an application if the child concerned is in the sheriffdom on the date of the application and the sheriff considers that, for the protection of the child, it is necessary to make such an order immediately. The defender's solicitor accepted that both the interdict sought in terms of crave 1 and the residence order sought in terms of crave 4 were Part I orders within the meaning of the 1986 Act and further, as I understood him, that there was sufficient material in the pursuer's averments, in particular in relation to the likelihood of the child's sustaining injury in the event of his return to the defender's home, to entitle this court to assert its emergency jurisdiction under section 12. (In this context reference was also made to section 14(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995).
 As already indicated, the pursuer's averments are replete with allegations about the defender's unfitness to care for the child. These are to be found in particular in articles 4, 5 and 6. (In passing, I observe that the author of these pleadings appears to have overlooked the wise advice in Macphail's Sheriff Court Practice (2nd Edn) at paragraph 9.46 to keep the articles of condescendence brief). Reference is made to a whole series of incidents in which the child was allegedly neglected by the defender in one way or another while in her care. It is said, for example, that on a number of occasions she left the child, while still a baby, unattended on a bed with the result that the child fell off and hurt himself. On another occasion it is said that she left the child unsupervised at the top of a flight of stairs and that the child fell all the way down these stairs. It is said that she left the child unsupervised beside her car by the road, that she allowed him to crawl and walk about upon kitchen work surfaces and sit next to open flames on a gas cooker, that he has frequently been covered in large bruises and on two occasions has sustained bad cuts, that she frequently transported him in a completely broken car seat, that she refused to purchase necessary medication for him, that she left him unattended in a high chair without fitting his safety harness onto him, that she permitted him to swallow stones and so on and so forth. The pursuer avers that he has constantly pointed out to the defender how seriously she puts the health and physical and mental well-being of the child at risk and that she has refused to receive any such advice from him. And he says that the child is at risk of serious physical injury due to her neglect of him and that in all the circumstances the interdict sought is necessary for the protection of the child.
 The action was raised on 27 July 2004 when Sheriff Harris granted a warrant to cite the defender and ad interim interdicted her from removing the child from the pursuer's care and control or furth of the sheriffdom without his express written permission or by further order of court. On 3 August 2004, on the motion of the pursuer and in the absence of the defender, the sheriff continued the interim interdict previously granted until further order of the court.
 On 10 August 2004 a motion was enrolled on behalf of the pursuer in terms of which he moved the court, inter alia, to ordain the defender to appear personally before the court to explain her failure to obtemper the interlocutors pronounced on 27 July and 3 August 2004 in respect that she had removed the child from the care and control of the pursuer and furth of the sheriffdom without his express written permission or by further order of court and to grant an interim residence order to the effect that the child should reside with the pursuer. On the same date, having heard the pursuer's agent on this motion, the sheriff dispensed with the requirement of intimation and induciae in respect of the motion and ordained the defender to appear personally before the court on 13 August 2004 to explain her failure to obtemper the earlier interlocutors. The sheriff continued consideration of that part of the motion which related to the granting of an interim residence order.
 On 13 August 2004 both parties were represented before Sheriff Cowan. Her interlocutor records that, on the motion of the defender, she continued the child welfare hearing until 27 August 2004, the defender having given an undertaking to appear at that hearing and to bring the child to Aberdeen. (The basis upon which the hearing before Sheriff Cowan fell to be treated as a child welfare hearing is not apparent from the papers in the case).
 On 27 August 2004 both parties appeared with their respective solicitors before Sheriff Cusine. The outcome of this hearing was that the sheriff pronounced an interlocutor in the following terms:
The Sheriff, Having heard parties' procurators on the Pursuer's motion made at the Bar to have the Defender found in contempt in respect of her failure to obtemper the Interlocutors dated 27 July and 4 August 2004 in respect that she removed the child, Cameron Ashley Bobby Craig, born 30 August 2002 from the care and control of the Pursuer, without the Pursuer's express written permission, or by further order of the Court; Continues consideration of the same; instructs the Sheriff Clerk to request the Process Server, Harold John Shore, 34 Nursery Road, Moordown, Bournemouth, Dorset, to identify those documents which were served by him on the Defender, she personally having admitted receiving service of the Initial Writ, and Forms F15 and F26 but not the Interlocutor dated 27 July; ad interim Makes a Residence Order whereby the said child shall reside with the Pursuer; Makes no Orders in relation to contact meantime; ex proprio motu Appoints Mr Richard Ward, Solicitor, Aberdeen to report to the Court by 8 October 2004 on all the circumstances and proposed arrangements for the care and upbringing of the said child Cameron Ashley Bobby Craig; Appoints the Director of Children and Families, Borough of Poole, to report to the Court by 8 October 2004 on the background, circumstances and proposed arrangements for the care and upbringing of the said child Cameron Ashley Bobby Craig; Ordains the Defender to instruct said reports and be responsible for payment of same in the first instance; on Joint Motion, Sists the cause for the reports to become available.
It is this interlocutor which is the subject of the present appeal.
 On 10 September 2004 a note of appeal was lodged on behalf of the defender. The material part of this reads as follows:
At a Child Welfare Hearing on 27 August 2004 the Sheriff made an Interim Residence Order in favour of the Pursuer. This involved the child Cameron Craig born 30 August 2002 being removed from the care of the Defender and placed in the care of the Pursuer. The Defender respectfully appeals against said judgement on the following grounds:-
|Other||Houston Minority Supplier Development Council, Touchpoint|
Carla Fontenot , VP Management Consulting and Partner: One-to-One Consultants is a Management Consulting Company helping corporate leaders improve conditions and increase business performance.
+1 312.618.6185 Mobile
+1 312.527.5447 Home
505 N. Lake Shore Dr, Suite 6207
Chicago, IL 60611
|Chicago, Illinois 60611|
|Primary Industry:Management Consulting||Founded in 2006|
..we have this hilarious pile of fluff that was dug up and posted to YouTube this weekend. Make sure you watch it quick, before David Miscavige's minions have it yanked down.
Speaking of diminutive Dave, he can be seen right at the front of this "We are the World"-type singalong that was put together in 1990...all around him are some famous names from Scientology's past and present:
At the 2:40 mark, you'll see everyone together warbling their guts out. Our tipster provided the following playbook:
Blonde with brown top and black jacket is Shelley Miscavige -- who is now missing.
To his right -- Mark Ingber -- Former Commanding Officer of CMO = Commodore Messengers Org, reported to be in the Hole. To Ingber's right and behind him, Mike Rinder Former Commanding Officer of OSA, currently blown and speaking out against the cult.
Front and Center -- David Miscavige [the little dude] wearing weird Hermes/goatse shirt. To DM's right and behind him -- Heber Jentzsch, Former President of the C of S, now reportedly in the The Hole.
To DM's right -- Greg Wilhere -- Inspector General, reportedly still working for DM. To Greg Wilhere's right-- Marty Rathbun, Former Inspector General for Ethics RTC, now out and speaking out against the cult as well as running the "Independent" Scientologists. To Marty's right -- Guillaume Lesevre Executive Director Int. reportedly in the The Hole.
I remember that it was done for one of the events and I think it was IAS anniversary event that was going to be in October. It may have been for an earlier event. It was done to show all the "Wins" and "successes for the year and the song was sung by a Scientologist singer named David Pomeranz. Charles Lake is the Gymnast and had just been on the Olympic team that summer that is why I think it was for the IAS event in October. I remember that the idea was to have all of International Management sing the chorus ala We are the World and DM thought the Scientology public would get a big kick out of it. All of the RTC Inspector Generals were in the front with DM and his wife Shelly and the Executive Director International Guillaume Leserve was there too. Then behind was the rest of RTC and the Watchdog Committee. I recognize many faces in the crowd. We recorded it in the Music Studio at the Gold Base and we are all looking at Peter Schless who is conducting the singing. Schless was a Gold Musician and his prior claim to fame was co writing the Jefferey Osbourne hit song "On the Wings of Love" from the 1980s. Me personally, I had just been put back working for David Miscavige again after a stint of manual labor for disagreeing with my wife being sent to the RPF. I however shortly after this video blew the base for good after 2 attempts. Almost 21 years ago.
Blow - To blow means "to leave without permission" or "to leave before something is completed". One can "blow staff", "blow course", "blow session", or "blow the org". It is a very, very serious offence in Scientology to blow. People who leave without permission in this way are usually declared.
If there’s one thing religion reporters, cult experts and former cult victims know about Scientology is that this cult is better at producing utter nonsense than any other so-called ‘New Religious Movement’ out there.
Unable to get much, if any, serious coverage in legitimate media outlets, Scientologists produce a constant barrage of ‘press releases’ praising the Church of Scientology for its marketing efforts — which more often than not are thinly disguised as ‘humanitarian campaigns,’ ‘disaster relief,’ ‘anti-drugs education,’ and what not.
Meanwhile the ‘Church’ tries hard to convince its members that it is doing exceedingly well, and that they are part of something truly special.
Hence the organization lies to its own members much the same way it lies to the public at large (e.g. by claiming that it is the ‘fastest growing religion of the 20th century’).
The result is spooky to say the least — a fact adequately demonstrated by Tom Cruise in his infamous Scientology video.
Recently another video — apparently meant for internal consumption only — became public. It’s a Scientology sing-along:
What makes this video, produced in 1990, noteworthy is what happened to many of the Scientologists ‘standing tall.’
Apparently many of the famous Scientologists in the video are no longer ‘standing tall’ for the cult.
The publishers of Religion News Blog support freedom of religion, but we also highlight cases where religions — real or not — fail to live up to their own ideals.
Scientologist charged with perverting course of justice
By Steve Cannane
One of the Church of Scientology's most senior figures, Jan Eastgate, has been arrested and charged in Sydney.
She has been charged with perverting the course of justice, in relation to allegations she coached an 11-year-old girl to lie to police and community services about the sexual abuse she suffered from her stepfather who was a member of the Church of Scientology.
Eastgate is the international president of the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights, an organisation founded by the Church of Scientology that campaigns against psychiatry.
She was awarded the church's Freedom Medal for promoting human rights in 1988.
Police allege Eastgate threatened and intimidated Carmen Rainer when she was 11 years old into providing false statements to police about the sexual abuse she suffered from her stepfather.
Carmen Rainer outlined these allegations for the first time on Lateline last year.
"She (Eastgate) kept repeating that: 'Just remember you can't tell them. Don't say yes because otherwise you will be taken away from your parents and you will never see your family again'," Ms Rainer told Lateline.
Carmen Rainer's story was backed up by her mother Phoebe.
"Jan Eastgate coached both of us, actually," said Phoebe Rainer.
"She came to us with DOCS - they weren't called DOCS back then - but she came with us to the interview and she basically told me what to say and Carmen what to say.
"She also told Carmen to lie to the police and I lied to the police as well because of that."
Carmel Underwood, who was at the time a senior figure in Scientology, says she witnessed these events.
"I knew that Carmen was being coached on what to say to the Department of Community Services and to the police," she said.
"So I challenged them on that and we had a bit of an argument and I was told it was none of my business and to get out of there.
"I didn't want to get out of there because I wanted to stop what was going on but I was escorted out of there."
Jan Eastgate declined to be interviewed at the time the allegations first aired on Lateline.
In an email to Lateline last year she described the allegations by Carmen and Phoebe Rainer as "egregiously false".
She did not respond to an email sent by Lateline tonight.
Jan Eastgate has been granted conditional bail and asked to surrender her passport.
She is due to appear in Downing Centre Court on June 16.
Scientology isn't a cult. It doesn't say anything about "Xenu" or a "Galactic Federation". It doesn't say anything about a God or Jesus or any other forms of Dogma. No one eats placenta. And Tom Cruise isn't crazy for being a member.It isn't perfect, but it's well intentioned and there are plenty of people who feel they've been helped by it. Why should it be considered crazier than any multi-thousand-year-old religion with dogma?Seriously want to know the answer to "What is Scientology"? Maybe the best answer is one straight from the source:http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/index.html
@NikonLondon You don't need to use Twitter as a form of witch hunt against them
Managing the EMEA team of Solution Architects, as well as guiding the training and consulting teams within the Security Products Group. Helping provide strategic direction for the EMEA side of the business. Involved in large enterprise opportunities, both from a pre sales as well as a post sales problem resolution perspective. Committed technology evangelist