Tony Ortega’s blogging campaign against my wife Monique and me over the past three months has resulted in the largest wave of hate we have experienced in several years. We even saw that an erstwhile friend published an unsolicited psychiatric evaluation (including still more falsehoods) to explain our behavior as characterized by Ortega. The following descriptions of Monique (some referred to both her and me) written by Bunker regulars and published by Ortega pretty much sum up the sentiments Ortega has fueled:

“Sympathy? I has none.

Monique, no respect. NONE. Sympathy? Nope. I never want to hear from these losers again

subservience , irrationality, and paranoia

Marty and Miscavige are cut from the same cloth. And Monique? Well, she did marry the guy.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Rathbuns name would surface somewhere in the future when some stuff like the “Panama-papers” are leaked again.

classless and nasty (both)

Mosey has fallen under thrall of whatever fixed delusion he is living under.

Somehow they were turned, Whether from threats or payoffs or some combination of the two.

I hope like hell the next Rathbun post will be how Mosey blew the ranch and escaped from Marty.

Either Monique is drinking Marty’s kool aid or I think the next thing we will hear about is a divorce.

The Rathbuns are as mentally ill as Scientology.

I’m very much afraid that the one who is going to end up rueing the day is Monique.

Well, she does heve to wake up next to Mr Scilon Warrior every day… I don’t envy her that..

I find it hard to maintain any respect or trust for them at this point.”

For those Bunkeroos already sold on Tony’s sexist pitch that Monique is incapable of making decisions of her own, the comments describing me included: “a burning train wreck, a fictional Nazi, a hanging judge, a mini-Hubbard, callous and unrepentant, boy, He’s nuts!, an asshole, FUCKIN DELUSIONAL, Marty doesn’t seem stable, an old alter ego who now embraces Hubbard’s paranoia even worse than before, He may or may not be a sociopath…He is certainly narcissistic and has other qualities that are borderline at the very least, I really think Marty has gone off the deep end too, a little mental illness, he is still “living in his head,”MR loves MR alright – but both stand for Mark Rathbun…He has never stopped playing footsie with his ex-boyfriend, He’s a sack of shit, an asshat selfish prick, some serious fuckery, Marty went nuts, My opinion is that Marty has gone over the edge and is behaving very self-destructively (unfortunately now with people to drag down with him), This appears to be a battle of two narcissists, I believe his hands got very dirty.” And finally, “I don’t think Marty is stable and that is not an environment to raise a child in.”

In this whirlwind of hysteria that became the Bunker comments section a few days ago, a singularly dissident voice interrupted, briefly. It was not rude. It was not assertive. It merely posed a question. The comment was not made by a friend or ally of ours. It was made by Alanzo, a long-time scientology critic who has unloaded quite a bit of criticism on me over the years. I thought it was interesting how quickly Bunkeroos sought to label him a troll and dismiss his apparently dangerous, if simple, thought. I re-publish it below for two reasons. I believe that standing alone it serves as a textbook study in phenomena we have explored in-depth on this blog (see e.g., Culture of Complaint, Good vs. Evil, Vortex of Hate, etc). The second reason for re-publishing, which serves to reinforce the first reason, is that Tony Ortega took it upon himself to censor this thread. He left in the plethora of ill-mannered demands for Monique’s and my necks. But, he deleted and censored Alanzo.

The deleted/censored thread:

Alanzo

Tony wrote: “In a bizarre document, Monique makes accusations that her former attorneys — Ray Jeffrey, Marc Wiegand, Elliott Cappuccio, and Leslie Hyman — had made it “abundantly clear” that the lawsuit was “not worth it financially,” and that the attorneys had filed defective paperwork that allowed Scientology’s attorneys to file appeals that caused delay.

Note Tony’s word “bizarre” used above to describe the document.

Is this Tony’s bias, or is he just reporting the facts?

Alanzo

chukicita Alanzo • 29 minutes ago

Perhaps it’s a bit of both. Certainly it’s not a typical document, and the accusations are unexpected and unusual. What word would you have used to describe it?

This is a blog, not a newspaper, and I think Tony does an excellent job of bringing the facts to light and keeping his opinions in check at times, even though he doesn’t have to.

Alanzo chukicita • 4 minutes ago

I think that the document has to perform an abrupt change in a course of action, and that it should be allowed to speak for itself.

Because this is a blog, and not a newspaper which is supposed to be more objective, I think it is even more important to question Tony’s opinions and to be on the look out for his bias on things and to remember that he has no corner on the truth. Other viewpoints and other opinions exist besides Tony Ortega’s, and sometimes those differing opinions shed more light on the truth, and on Scientology, than Tony Ortega could ever muster.

Everyone is biased in favor of Ray Jeffrey here, and his team of lawyers. And we even have another lawyer as an “expert” giving his opinion about the criticisms of Ray Jeffrey, which, unsurprisingly, are very “pro-lawyer”.

Maybe Monique presented a document to the court which was true, and the criticisms of her former attorneys were justified. Why else would such abrupt action need to be taken? Perhaps we should ask Mr Occam, too?

Do clients normally never disagree with the course of actions taken by their attorneys unless they are insane as Tony and Texas Lawyer have both intimated? Do Tony, or even Texas Lawyer, know the particular situation with her lawyers better than Monique?

No.

So I think this is exactly where Tony, and Texas Lawyer, should keep their biases to themselves. And if they are unable to do that, those biases should be highlighted, and questioned by the “commenting community” here.

That is, if the commenting community here cares about the truth.

Alanzo

L Wrong Hubturd Alanzo • 14 minutes ago

5 comments, 6 votes. I do not think you are the real “Alanzo”

Alanzo L. Wrong Hubturd • 5 minutes ago

Yes. I am the Real Alanzo. I went into retirement last year when I got news that my best friend had cancer, and I could not imagine wasting my time on anything related to Scientology ever again. So I whacked all my accounts.

But my friend has gotten radiation and chemotherapy and it has lengthened the amount of life he has left to live, and so I felt I could afford a little more Scientology in my life.

chukicita • 15 minutes ago

Additionally, I think the knee-jerk reaction that somehow Monique was being called insane was not useful at all.

The *behavior* of firing successful lawyers was, in the absence of other information, being called out as inconsistent with the original goals of the lawsuit. Reading over the original blog post, no one called *Monique* insane.

chukicita • 19 minutes ago

I think it’s important to look at the pattern of behavior that at least on the surface seems to be a thread of cohesion in some litigation that involves Scientology. Perhaps Dr. Occam could call up Bob Minton and Ken Dandar.

If you have facts that contradict, why not offer them up?

L Wrong Hubturd chukicita • 12 minutes ago

I do not think think this is the Alonzo you think it is. I think we have an impostor, here to stir the pot.

Alanzo L. Wrong Hubturd • 3 minutes ago

Oh, make no mistake: I am here to stir the pot.

Obviously you don’t know the Real Alanzo.

Alanzo

ze moo • 29 minutes ago

No the word bizarre does fit the situation. This filing shows some no longer pent up anger and distrust of the lawyers involved. The client is not always right, but they do have approve what their lawyers do. It seems that a simmering disagreement has boiled over and this is the result.

It is bizarre to fire your lawyers when they are on a roll. All of the delays and appeals were foreseeable and should have been planed on.

While the legal work is over in this case, the story is not over yet.

Alanzo ze moo • 15 minutes ago

The pay out of this suit was never going to be unlimited. If you look at Monique’s document as a statement of non-viability of the economics of the lawsuit, I do not think it is bizarre at all.

And I think your description of a “simmering disagreement has boiled over and this is the result.” is pretty accurate. I think Marty has pretty good experience with how Church lawyers operate, and Marty and Monique might not have been listened to as closely as they should have been.

And since Monique stated that they were able to achieve outside of the court what the lawsuit sought to achieve in the court, she dropped the suit.

Sorry. This, if true, is not bizarre.

That is only Tony’s bias showing.

Alanzo