Skeptic Project

Click to get back to topic starter


More the the feud between Steve Hassan and Rick Ross.

Rick Ross and Steve Hassan had worked together up until the Waco incident around 1993. If anybody is unfamiliar with the Waco siege here is a brief abstract about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

" The siege began when the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), accompanied by several members of the media, attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel, a property located in the city of Elk, Texas [2] 9 miles (14 km) east-northeast of Waco, Texas. On February 28, shortly after the attempt to serve the warrant, an intense gun battle erupted, lasting nearly 2 hours. In this armed exchange, four agents and six Branch Davidians were killed. Upon the ATF's failure to execute the search warrant, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The siege ended 50 days later when a fire destroyed the compound when a second assault was launched. 75 people[3] (24 of them British nationals)[4] died in the fire, including more than 20 children, two pregnant women, and the sect leader David Koresh."

Steve Hassan attempted to get himself as well as other people involved as he thought even before the horrible tragedy of in Waco occurred, the way the FBI was handling Branch Davidians cult was more like handling a terrorist organization than as a cult. He went to such steps as to write a letter to the president of the United States at the time who is Bill Clinton. Steve in 1994 did a lecture at Harvard University Science Center at which he specifically talks about how poorly the Waco incident was handled by the government. Steve had suggested the Waco incident was done so the FBI could get publicity from it and believes what really happened was covered up.

http://tinyurl.com/7dyyn6b

I think that the government was certainly ill-advised, ill-prepared, I think to attempt a forcible assault, as they did, with women and children in a compound such as that, was just beyond stupid. Good for media, good for hype, good for Rambo-style things, but in terms of serving the public good I think it was horrible. Unlike what destructive cults like Scientology, the Moonies, and other groups that I criticize that say that government has no right to go there at all, I do believe they had a right to go there to investigate arms, to look after people's well-being including the alleged sexual abuse of minors and such. Clearly in retrospect what the government should have done was taken David Koresh when he was jogging, when he was in town having a cheeseburger, or lure him into town, and from there they could have sent a handful of agents to investigate the premises, and then it would have been a non-event. But unfortunately they didn't do that.

In Steve's lecture he talks about Rick Ross in the Q&A. As he suggests that Rick Ross should of never of been involved in Waco. That he has "no love for Rick" as well as he suggest Rick is limited as to what he can do for cults and that Rick was never really in a cult himself and does not have the mindset that Steve has for cult intervention.

http://tinyurl.com/7dyyn6b

[Question from audience] inaudible

SH: The Cult Awareness Network - the entity, the Cult Awareness Network, which is a non-profit educational organization - does not support or endorse any kidnapping or deprogramming activities, but they are concerned about destructive cults, and they are a source for information and referral. There are individuals who subscribe to their newsletters and who go to their conferences who engage in forcible attempts at interventions to help people involved with destructive cults. Like Rick Ross. I have no love for Rick Ross. In fact, I'm glad you mentioned him. At the point the FBI was shining the bright lights and doing the auditory barrage, I criticized it, and I was quoted in numerous newspapers, in AP and such, and Rick Ross called me, and said, "Steve, you don't understand what's going on. The FBI knows what they're doing. Don't say these things." I said, "Rick, the FBI doesn't know what the hell they're doing, they're torturing people, they're reinforcing Koresh's worldview, and they're making people even more vulnerable." And yes, he was consulted by the FBI, he was the only person that I am aware of that even has any connection whatsoever with the Cult Awareness Network, in the sense of even having attended some of their meetings, and I think personally that the FBI made a major error to rely, or even to talk to him. Because he was never in a cult himself. He doesn't know how to think like a cult member. And in my experience, my ability, because of my first-hand experience, to be able to go inside the mindset, is what helps me to have empathy, and also to have an awareness of what to say and how to say it. Groups like destructive cults, some of which I've mentioned before, have created an image that there's this multi-million dollar, international neo-Nazi group of kidnappers who like to beat and torture people out of new religious groups, and they're the Cult Awareness Network, and the reason why Waco went up in flames is because the Cult Awareness Network was really behind the FBI, and it's all these evil people. And I say, "That's just cult propaganda. That's bull. That is not correct. Wrong, wrong, wrong!" That's my personal opinion, and it's based on twenty years of experience. [NOTE added in 1999: in 1996, The Cult Awareness Network was used into bankruptcy by agents of Scientology. One of Rick Ross's failures became a multi-million dollar civil suit against a CAN volunteer for recommending Ross. Since then, the name, logo and phone number now belongs to agents of Scientology. The Leo J. Ryan Foundation of Bridgeport Connecticut is trying to fill the void left by the loss of CAN.]

Rick's response was to add Steve Hassan to a special section on Rick's site called the flame list. Rick has a flame rating system which goes up to 4, four indicates the worst flame possible on his rating scale 1 flame means not so bad flame. Rick Gave Steve Hassan response toward Rick about the Waco incident a two flame.

2 flames Steve Hassan--Waco

Steve Hassan, cult expert and author, offers his criticism of my work related to Waco. Ironically, both Steve Hassan and myself are listed together on Rev. Moon's Unification Church page Faith Breakers, Dream Killers and Religious Bigots..." (i.e., Steve Hassan is the ..."Dream Killer" and I am the "Faith Breaker.") He concludes, "I think personally that the FBI made a major error to rely, or even to talk to [Rick Ross]. Because he was never in a cult himself. And in my experience, my ability, because of my first-hand experience...[gives me]...an awareness of what to say and how to say it...."Steve Hassan then laments,"I made numerous efforts to try to correct the situation...I approached my congressman...[who] wrote numerous letters and made many phone calls...encouraging them to get in touch with me. They did not. I faxed a letter to... President Clinton, a letter was faxed...directly to Janet Reno...[copies] of my book [were given] to Webster Hubble [and]...FBI negotiators in Waco...But I've never been called. I've never been contacted in fact, even though there was supposed to be a follow-up investigation..." Note: This award winning link has gone dead and the author's work is no longer available through a known Internet address.

Rick Ross responds towards what Steve Hassan said about Rick in his lecture about Waco. Rick has problems with Steve's cost for deprogramming a individual as the problems were raised by a unknown individual who Rick never really says who the individual is nor says shows exactly what this persons concerns are besides money. Rick then states he had to rip two of Steve Hassans books off his website but does not give a logical nor rational reason to do so besides he has a problem with Steve Hassan Critizing his action in Waco as well as he has a problem with how much Steve Hassan charges for deprogramming sessions.

http://www.culteducation.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html#Steven_Hassan

Steven Hassan

It is sad when someone who has fought against destructive cults somehow sees me as an adversary. Steve and I once worked together and his two books at one time were listed at the Books page of the Ross Institute (RI).

Beginning with my work surrounding the Waco Davidians standoff (1992-93) Steve became something of a critic, which was noted through a "Flaming Websites" award.

After receiving serious complaints about his work and the fees Steve charged families for his services, reportedly $500.00 per hour or $5,000 per day, a disclaimer was posted that RI did not endorse or recommend Steven Hassan. This was necessary due to the many articles archived within the RI database that quote him and/or refer to his work. A link to his Web site "Freedom of Mind" at the Links page and the listing of his two books at the Books page were also removed.

After that disclaimer at the RI Web site was posted for the first time Steven Hassan publicly posted his fee schedule, which he reduced to $250.00 per hour and/or $2,500.00 per day. Once this was done the RI disclaimer was taken down, but links to Steve's Web site and his two books no longer appear at the database.

Steve appears to be upset by all this and has decided to portray what was done as somehow constituting a "personal attack."

However, whenever serious complaints occur connected to cults, on either side of this issue, it seems to me that it is meaningful to respond. In a somewhat similar situation an article appeared at Cult News about another cult intervention professional, Patrick Ryan, who was sued by a client when he refused to return an unearned deposit.

Summary

I acted as a responsible expert during Waco Davidian standoff. I was the only cult expert in the country at that time with direct experience regarding the Davidians. Despite the conspiracy theories within a thriving cottage industry of conspiracy theorists and apologists, the facts support my view of both Vernon Howell (David Koresh) and the standoff. I did disagree at times with the FBI and BATF handling of the standoff. But in the final analysis, despite some of my suggestions the FBI did not try, David Koresh controlled and was ultimately responsible for the outcome. In the end he decided to destroy the compound and murder his own people.

It is sad when someone like Steven Hassan who has fought against destructive cults somehow sees me as adversarial. And discovering Anton Hein's fugitive sex offender status was a disappointment to say the least. Unfortunately, I can no longer recommend Steve, nor in any way associate RI with Anton Hein. Just as it is necessary to share adverse information about cults in the public interest, at times due to ethical considerations it is also necessary to share adverse information about cult critics.

Steve Hassan acknowledges the attacks against him by Rick Ross and explains his perspective on the matter.

http://tinyurl.com/6v575jl

Response to Rick Ross's Personal Attack on Me

I want to respond to Rick Ross's attacks on my ethics and professional work counseling people in need. Initially I tried to ignore his inappropriate and completely inaccurate accusations but it has gotten out of hand. What is especially saddening is that we are supposedly both fighting the same battle.

Of course there are some differences between Rick Ross and myself and I wonder whether his perception of those differences may not be part of the problem. Unlike Ross, I'm a trained mental health professional, former cult member, author of two well-received books, and have nearly three decades of experiencing people who have been harmed by destructive mind control.

As for the accusations, my current fees are not $500 as Ross claims. I charge half that for an hour of counseling and have done so for quite some time. In response to his suggestions that I am unethical in my dealings with clients, I want to assert that I abide by the ethical guidelines of my professional organizations including the American Counseling Association. Every person I have ever worked with has known what I charge in advance and has agreed to it. In recent months, in accordance with the new federal HIPAA guidelines, clients must sign a written contract that discloses all necessary information, if they wish to work with me.

It is up to my clients to decide if they wish to spend the money to help their loved one, and what they are willing to pay for my services. To my knowledge no one has lost a house because of me.

Ross failed to call my office and inquire about my fees. He simply sent emails, faxes, and certified letters in an accusatory tone, which I decided to have my lawyer deal with because I feel my time is better spent helping those in need.

Finally I would like to add that I have done an enormous amount of pro bono work over the past 27 years. Also, I charge less for counseling former members who have difficulty paying my fees. I provide a sliding scale for former members when necessary, and also have arranged long term, no interest payment plans.

I hope this clarifies the situation. I'd like to thank those of you who have come to my defense. I trust that Ross will now remove the Freedom of Mind Resource Center from his list of groups, a place it never, ever belonged.

Steven Hassan M.Ed LMHC
Freedomofmind.com

Rick Ross responds to Steven Hassan Response about Rick Ross attacks by linking Steve's response in Rick's flame section of the site and giving it a flame rating of 3.
http://www.culteducation.com/flamingwebsites.html

"Response to Rick Ross's personal attack on me," by Steven Hassan

This somewhat heated response popped up on Steve Hassan's "Freedom of Mind" website after the Ross Institute (RI) posted a disclaimer regarding the cult specialist's fees. Complaints were received from families about the rates Mr. Hassan charged for services, which reportedly were $500.00 per hour and/or $5,000 per day. Some families mortgaged homes to pay him. Mr. Hassan refused to specifically respond to the substance of the complaints. That is, until a disclaimer went up that stated RI did not endorse or recommend Steven Hassan due to complaints received. After that was done for the first time Mr. Hassan publicly posted his fee schedule, which was reduced to $250.00 per hour and/or $2,500.00 per day. Once Steve Hassan reduced his fees and made this public, the RI disclaimer was taken down. Nevertheless Mr. Hassan appears to be miffed, and seems to think responding to complaints received about him is somehow a "personal attack."

Note: Since these comments were posted Steve Hassan has removed his formerly publically posted fee schedule. His website now adivises, "Please call my assistant Debra [...] during office hours with any questions about fees."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

In my opinion based on the above Rick Ross is not very professional in a academic sense towards legitimate critics. As Steve Hassan has been able to handle himself professionally without having to result in personal attack towards Rick. Rick is a bit dishonest on the academic level as he has ripped two good books off his website written by Steve Hassan. I find it unprofessional as just because you do not get along with the guy it is certainly not grounds to delete books related to cults because you are still upset at being a critics towards yourself.

I find Rick Ross to be juvenile in the academic world as well as academically dishonest. I find Rick Ross work to be riddle with confirmation Bias not just on Steve Hassan but others who he defines as critics towards him as well. I do not think Rick Ross in my opinion should be taken seriously when it pertains to cultic activity or to describe him as a cult expert.

In my opinion when it comes to the term "cults" one needs to be a credential/professional training professional in these matters at which Rick Ross lacks credentials/professional training to do so. Rick Ross is playing a very dangerous game that could potentially have very serious negative affects on outsiders as well as people within cult organizations wanting out. It is my recommendation that people stay clear/not take serious of any of Rick Ross advice, academic works, or anything else that pertains to cults made by him.

As I will post more on the topic of Rick Ross I have concluded that Rick Ross academic/research often comes in conflict with his emotion at which the out come is as I have shown, led to be confirmation bias. Confirmation bias should have no barring in research let alone in someone's thinking. Just because Rick is upset at Steve Hassan for being a critic toward Rick's work (in Waco), does not mean it invalidates Steve Hassans work nor does it invalidate Rick's work. Rick's active incivility towards Steve Hassan is not going to help his cause as I pointed out it's just going to hurt him more and his credibility in the end.

I would recommend that if Rick Ross has a problem with Steve Hassan (at which he does) that he contact Steve directly instead of indirectly like he has done. As Rick actively is going on the attack on a consistent bases unlike Steve Hassan.

Anybody want to discuss more about this you are welcome to communicate with me via e-mail anytime. e-mail cs2012ct at ymail dot com


Click to get back to topic starter

Quote from Agent Matt

You raged at VTV and got banned. Nothing deeper than that bro.

This is why you do not respond to VTV.

@Agent Matt I'd say VTV has done plenty of raging himself on Rick Ross site. I thought what I wrote I was fairly tame in comparison =P. However rick did not claim to of banished because I was raging anybody but states I was arguing and did copyright infringement on some of his material, at which I completely disagree but at this point I don't care to dispute the matter towards RR.com. I believe Rick got upset because I criticized his work. In the back of my head I've always was skeptical of Rick's work when I come come across it on occasions (from Meurtos blog etc..). I mean I've read some of what Steve Hassan has done and I have to Rick Ross looks like a guy who is basing his work on outdated modules. There is a reason why people update there modules Ross. Just because you often refer to Lifton doesn't mean what Lifton says or models are set in stone or up to date.

After doing some quick reading/searches over a few things Rick Ross wrote I do think there is room to raise the question of Rick Ross academic integrity as well as credibility, when it comes to his claim of being a cult expert and therefore will attempt show reasons to raise such a question as I did above.

I don't mean to get off topic but for Rick Ross or anybody on RR.com. In response to VTV and my prediction about him talking about this topic on RR.com to justify what he does.

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,97823,page=25

"VTV wrote: The TZM forums were no different in that regard. Again, as I have already pointed out and has yet to be refuted people were not banned for voicing dissent. They were banned for the same sort of things that you ban people from here for. And the same results are happening as now 2012CT has taken to personally attacking Rick Ross for daring to ban him from this forum."

I'd like to note that I predicted on SP FB (which is private) VTV would try to use what I said about Rick Ross as some sort of justification as to what he is doing. First of all this has nothing to do with VTV, this is a separate issue as I often call out quakes (banished or nto banished off there site EX: David Ike reptilians) on SP besides Rick Ross himself. I'm sure by now Rick Ross is use to it so what I'm doing is nothing new.

At that I have from the start known about the TZM cult discussion on RR.com and did not insert myself in the conversation mainly because I usually do not. However based on my own research after Meurtos first mentioned RR.com I found Rick Ross to be a pseudointellectual but had no incentive before to do the work to examine the integrity of what Mr. Ross does.

I have read some of the works of Steve Hassan and find him to be up to date on his research, and have better explanations of what may happening within a persons mind whose in a cult but more importantly what is going on in the mind of the cult leader themselves as they are victims themselves as well.

Another point the position I take on Rick Ross is a very unpopular position to take as I am also a author on James Kush site as well and as far as I know many support what Rick does. I actually made sure this thread was appropriate to post on the SP site so I asked a few people there thoughts some said they didn't really like what Rick Ross does and therefore that gave me more of a incentive to write this topic.

Again VTV this has nothing to do with you. In no wher ein this thread does it invovle you, and in no rational sense can you use this thread against me as some sort of justification based on what I said above.


A post I made on SP FB of the prediction I made that VTV may try to use the material I wrote about Rick Ross question him on his academic integrity for the justification of what he does. People from Sp can collaborate what I wrote because VTV is that manipulative to say I never made the prediction that he would do this. VTV is again a narcissistic manipulator. Here's the important segment that VTV would mention my post I wrote about Rick on SP that VTV may try to contact Rick about what I wrote about him "(I also assume show Rick my thread I wrote about Rick on SP)". Here's more on Rick Ross site a article about people like VTV who are what I'd define as manipulative people and the techniques they often use to confuse and control people http://www.culteducation.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing11.html . I'd define VTV as using Covert-Aggression tactics.

"I agree. VTV has to win the larping battle. I like how he says he's going to go above Corboy and PM Rick Ross material (I also assume show Rick my thread I wrote about Rick on SP)."


(I cut out a lot of the things I wrote in the conversation as it's not relevant towards my prediction of VTV's manipulation).

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I also want to note that VTV lies and I can actually point out an example on Rick Ross site.

VTV said that Rick Ross agree to be on VTV radio show at which Rick Ross states he did not but acknowledges VTV contacted him. VTV often uses such tactics to get people onto his radio show. Example being when people like Stefan Molnex (spelling), stormcloudgather, charlie veitch disagree with him he got his hoard of TZM members to spam there channels and convince them to go onto his web show. VTV MO is attempting to intimidate people to eventually go onto his radio show to gain publicity.

This is one of many examples of how VTV lies, manipulates, twists information to his benefit.

http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,97823,page=4

VTV wrote: I spoke to the owner of this website today on the phone and will probably be having him on a radio show at some point to talk about this topic.

XXXXXXXX

Rick Ross responds: VTV:

I have not agreed to do your radio show.

We spoke very briefly by phone and I suggested if you have issues with posts at this message board you can exercise free speech and respond.

But there are rules at this message board, which you agreed to before posting here.

Personal attacks directed at members of this board is a violation of those rules.

If you wish to make a point and respond please do so without name calling or personal attacks.

Just because I disagree with Rick Ross doesn't mean his work does not have any validity however just like corboy examines me or Rick Ross examines people/groups I have the right to do so on my grounds as well. I do not dispute the banishment by Rick Ross, Rick can do as he pleases as well as I can. I am however questioning Rick Ross academic integrity which I have always questions but never disputed until I got incentive after the e-mail exchange we had. Which the e-mail exchange confirmed to me the type of professionalism Rick Ross has not just towards handling critics but reflects more so on how he handles his work and being labeled a "cult expert" as well in a academic sense. I knew Rick was not fond of Steve Hassan however I never knew why until now which again reaffirms one to question Rick Ross academic integrity. Yes I am a troll as I'm a academic troll.

Click to get back to topic starter


Rick Ross bankrupts Cult awareness network using cult deprogramming tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming

Deprogramming is an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group.[1][2] Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion.[3] The person in question is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion, kidnapping and civil rights, as well as the violence which is sometimes involved.Deprogramming is an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group.[1][2] Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion.[3] The person in question is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion, kidnapping and civil rights, as well as the violence which is sometimes involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming

During the 1990s, deprogrammer Rick Ross was sued by Jason Scott, a former member of a Pentecostal group called the Life Tabernacle Church, after an unsuccessful deprogramming attempt. In 1995, the jury awarded Scott $875,000 in compensatory damages and $2,500,000 in punitive damages against Ross, which were later settled for $5,000 and 200 hours of services. More significantly, the jury also found that the leading anti-cult group known as the Cult Awareness Network was a co-conspirator in the crime and fined CAN $1,000,000 in punitive damages, forcing the group into bankruptcy.[16] This case is often seen as effectively closing the door on the practice of involuntary deprogramming in the United States.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX





I enjoyed reading this. Rick Ross credentials are in question in a case called "State of Arizona v. James Arthur Ray" . It's really a good read but the part I really enjoyed is the Rick Ross institute which isn't that professional as it sounds as you will read.

His main professional activity is serving as "Executive Director" of the "Ross Institute," an entity with no employees other than Ross and no physical offices, and with "board members" consisting of two acquaintances and his brother. Ross's "work" at the "Institute" involves archiving news stories related to groups that, in his view, constitute cults or controversial groups or movements.

"Rick Ross later had his credentials questioned in 2011 in the case of " State of Arizona v. James Arthur Ray, Case No. V1300CR201080049, Defendant James Arthur Ray's Motion in Limine (No.9) To Exclude Testimony of Rick Ross" credentials as a witness and his criminal record were questioned by the defendant.[28]"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53037268/State-of-Arizona-v-James-Arthur-Ray-Case-No-V1300CR201080049-Defendant-James-Arthur-Ray%E2%80%99s-Motion-in-Limine-No-9-To-Exclude-Testimony-of-Rick-Ros

mirror
http://archive.org/details/MotionToExcludeTestimonyOfRickRoss-StateOfArizonaV.JamesArtherRay
mirror
http://wikisource.org/wiki/State_of_Arizona_v._James_Arthur_Ray,_Case_No._V1300CR201080049,_Defendant_James_Arthur_Ray%E2%80%99s_Motion_in_Limine_(No.9)_To_Exclude_Testimony_of_Rick_Ross

State Of Arizona, Plaintiff,
Vs.
James Arthur Ray, Defendant.
Case No. V 13000r201080049
Hon.Warren Darrow Division PTB
State of Arizona v. James Arthur Ray,
Case No. V1300CR201080049,
Defendant James Arthur Ray's Motion in Limine
(No.9) To Exclude Testimony of Rick Ross
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION
The prosecution seeks to call as an expert witness Rick Ross--a self-proclaimed expert in "destructive cults, controversial groups and movements." Expert Witness Report of Rick Ross, dated Jan. 5, 2011 ("Ross Report") (Exhibit A). According to the State, Ross's testimony will explain to the jury why participants felt they could not leave the sweat lodge during the 2009 JRI ceremony. In particular, Ross will testify that Mr. Ray used specialized "techniques" of "neurolinguistic programming" (NLP) and "large group awareness training" (LGAT) to "control" participants in the 2009 JRI sweat lodge, causing them to remain inside the sweat lodge "notwithstanding becoming ill." Letter from Bill Hughes to Truc Do, Jan. 12, 2011 (Exhibit B); State's Bench Memorandum Regarding 404(b) Acts (filed 10/21/10).
Ross's proposed testimony fails multiple independent hurdles of admissibility and must therefore be excluded. First, Ross's proposed testimony is irrelevant. Ross's opinions on supposed psychological techniques address only one question: why participants felt they could not leave the sweat lodge. But that question is not in issue at this trial. Not a single witness will say they did not feel free to leave the sweat lodge. Indeed, the evidence will show that participants felt free to leave the sweat lodge at any time, were in fact free to leave, and did leave when they wanted to. And many who left chose to return to finish the sweat lodge ceremony. Because Ross's testimony hinges on a counterfactual scenario, it is irrelevant and has no probative value whatsoever. This basic failing is dispositive of the State's attempt to introduce Ross's opinions.
Second, Ross's proposed testimony is barred by Arizona Rule of Evidence 702. An expert witness, even if properly qualified, may not opine on how general behavioral tendencies manifested themselves in the case under review. See State v. Montijo, 160 Ariz. 576, 580 (App. 1989); State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378 (1986). And Ross, in any event, is not qualified to testify regarding the mental state of JRI participants. By his own admission, Ross has not spoken to a single participant from the JRI sweat lodge and has never met Mr. Ray.(1) His only source of information regarding the sweat lodge comes from media accounts and a PowerPoint presentation provided by the Yavapai County Attorney.(2) This fact also casts doubt on whether Ross's opinion could be admissible under Rule 703, which requires that opinions be based on materials that experts in the field would "reasonably rel[y] upon."
The State cannot surmount the glaring Rule 702 deficiencies in Ross's opinions regarding JRI participants by portraying Ross as an expert in the alleged psychiatric and psychological phenomena of "LGAT" and "NLP" who can simply "educate the jury" in these concepts. State's 1/12 Letter, Exhibit B at 1. Even assuming these concepts--for which Ross could provide no accepted definition--could be considered a legitimate subject of expert testimony, Ross surely is not qualified to educate others in their supposedly psychological mechanisms. Ross has no education or training other than a high school degree, has no specialized training in counseling or mental health matters, and has never worked with the psychologists and psychiatrists that his report cites.
Third, even if Ross's proposed testimony could clear all of these hurdles, it must be excluded pursuant to Rule 403. The prejudice attendant to introducing a cult expert at trial is plain. It is yet another attempt by the State to try this case on the basis of Mr. Ray's character, rather than the merits of its evidence. And given the lack of any connection between Ross's opinions and the facts in evidence, such prejudice would be profoundly unfair. Ross's testimony must be excluded.
Moreover, the testimony -- irrelevant and inflammatory speculation by an individual whose worrisome agenda and troubled past far outrun his virtually non-existent qualifications -- would degrade the integrity of this Court and imperil Mr. Ray's right to a fair trial. As discussed in further detail below, Ross also serves as a "consultant" who performs "interventions" and "cult deprogramming." Some of his work has been violent and unlawful, resulting in criminal prosecution and civil sanction.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
According to Ross's Expert Witness Report, he is "one of the most readily recognized experts offering analysis about destructive cults, controversial groups and movements." (Ross Report at 2). As he stated in his interview with Mr. Ray's attorneys on January 21, 2011, this "recognition" refers mainly to his media appearances, which fill over half of his 9-page CV. Ross has no college degree and no graduate degree. He has taken no college classes on psychology, medicine, group dynamics, sociology, or therapy, and has no training in any mental health field. His main professional activity is serving as "Executive Director" of the "Ross Institute," an entity with no employees other than Ross and no physical offices, and with "board members" consisting of two acquaintances and his brother. Ross's "work" at the "Institute" involves archiving news stories related to groups that, in his view, constitute cults or controversial groups or movements.
Ross also serves as a "consultant" who performs "interventions" and "cult deprogramming." Some of his work has been violent and unlawful. In 1991, for example, a Washington jury found him guilty of civil rights violations for abducting an 18-year-old man and conducting a 5-day, involuntary religious deprogramming. In upholding a punitive damages award against Ross of $2.5 million dollars, the district court judge noted that Ross "actively participated in the plan to abduct Mr. Scott, restrain him with handcuffs and duct tape, and hold him involuntarily while demeaning his religious beliefs," and that "[a] large award of punitive damages [was] also necessary" for "recidivism and mitigation" purposes, since "Mr. Ross himself testified that he had acted similarly in the past and would continue to conduct `deprogrammings' in the future." See Order, Scott v. Ross, Case No. C94-0079C (W.D. Wash. Nov. 29, 1995).3
The State represents that Ross is an expert in "NLP," "LGAT," and the "'Human Potential' Movement." According to the State, Ross will:
testify "about all the matters set forth in his report including Large Group Awareness Training and the 'Human Potential' movement," [Letter from Sheila Polk to Truc Do and Luis Li, January 7, 2011 (Exhibit C), at 1];
testify "about how these techniques affect the behaviors of group participants and the Defendant's use of these techniques to influence the decisions of participants to participate and remain inside the sweat lodge," id.;
testify "to educate the jury regarding Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT)"; [1/12/11 Letter, Exhibit B, at 1];
testify about "the persuasive power that LGAT can hold over participants," id;
"be asked to apply hypothetical fact scenarios (mirroring the facts in this case) to his knowledge of LGAT," id.; and
"give the opinion that defendant exerted a high level of control over the victims, and defendant's control over the victims was such that they would remain inside the sweat lodge until the sweat lodge ceremony ended, notwithstanding becoming ill." Id.
Ross himself stated in his interview that he does not consider himself an expert in neurolingustic programming. As to "LGAT," Ross professes expertise but stated that he is unaware of any academically accepted definition of LGAT. Similarly, Ross stated that he is unaware of academically accepted definitions of other apparent terms of art used in his Report, such as the "Human Potential" movement, "psychonoxious," "countertransference reactions," and "encounter groups." [See Ross Report, Exhibit A]. Ross also stated that he has never worked with any of the scholars whose work provides the "supporting documents" for the existence of a category called "LGAT" and its alleged criteria and effects. [See id. at 2-3].

III. ARGUMENT
A.Ross's proposed testimony must be excluded because it is irrelevant.
1. The proposed testimony is not probative of any fact in issue in this case.
"Expert testimony, of course, must meet the tests of relevancy and materiality." [1 Ariz. Practice § 702:1 (Rev. 4th ed.)]. Testimony fails these basic tests when it pertains only to facts that are not at issue or when its relevance hinges on a counterfactual scenario. [See, e.g., Menendez v. Paddock Pool Const. Co., 172 Ariz. 258, 269 (App. 1991) (expert opinion that swimming pool was intrinsically dangerous due to absence of a "deep end" and insufficient signage was "immaterial" where injury occurred in the shallow end; the expert's affidavit "fail[ed] to provide any reasonable linkage between the condition alleged and the injury") See also State v. Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 167 (1990) (expert testimony regarding general political situation in El Salvador was irrelevant to voluntariness of El Salvadoran defendant's confession where there was no connection between the political situation and the actual circumstances of the confession)]. Put simply, if the expert's opinion bears only on a question that is not in issue in the case, that opinion is not relevant and not admissible.
This most basic rule of admissibility bars Ross's proposed testimony. The State seeks to introduce Ross's testimony regarding the effects of "NLP" and "LGAT" solely to address the question of why participants felt they were not free to leave the sweat lodge. As the Defense has pointed out in a recent motion,4 this question presumes a counterfactual scenario. Not a single participant states that he or she was not free to leave the sweat lodge. To the contrary, the evidence will show that participants felt free to leave the sweat lodge at any time, were in fact free to leave, and did leave when they wanted to.
Three participants in the Spiritual Warrior weekend--Elsa Hafsted, Simin Marzvan, and Soheyla Marzvan--chose not to do the sweat lodge at all. Three others entered the sweat lodge but decided to leave after the first round. [See Transcript of Interview of Sylvia De La Paz by Det. Willingham, 10/27/09, at 12:13-14 (stating that "there were two other people that left in the first round with me: Carl and his wife Louise [Nelson]"); id at 12:25 ("those of us in physical distress got the hell out of there")]. Many participants came and left throughout the ceremony, including two participants who left in the middle of subsequent rounds. [See Transcript of Interview of John Ebert by Det. Parkison, 10/8/09, at 3:20-21 (Ebert left in Round 4 and went back in for Round 7); Transcript of Interview of Dawn Gordon by Sgt. Boelts, 10/12/09, at 23:19-23 (John Ebert exited through the side flap during Round 4); Transcript of Interview of Bill Leversee by Det. Surak, 10/8/09, at 9:27 ("I left in the middle of a round.")]. And the State's own witnesses will testify consistently that they were always free to leave if they chose. [See, e.g., Transcript of Interview of Randall Potter by Det. Surak, 10/8/09, at 10:7-8 ("You know, if anybody wanted to leave they would have left."); Transcript of Interview of Danita Oleson by Det. Parkison, 10/8/09, at 5:8 ("Anybody could have left at anytime.")].
The State plainly has not met its burden of showing that Ross's testimony will bear on a fact of consequence in this case. Indeed, given the affirmative evidence that participants were free to leave and were not under Mr. Ray's "control," the State cannot meet this burden.5 Ross's proposed testimony is irrelevant and void of any probative value. It must be excluded.

2. Hypothetical questions cannot rest on facts not in evidence.
The same principles of relevance preclude testimony that the State may attempt to elicit through hypothetical questions based on facts contrary to the evidence. The State has indicated that it may seek to elicit Ross's opinions regarding why participants were not free to leave the sweat lodge through hypothetical questions. [See State's 1/7/11 Letter, Exhibit C, at 1 ("Hypothetical questions will be posed as necessary."); State's 1/12/11 Letter, Exhibit B, at 1 ("Mr. Ross ... will be asked to apply hypothetical fact scenarios (mirroring the facts in this case) to his knowledge of LGAT.")]. It is well-established that hypothetical questions, like other questions, must be "based on facts in evidence" and must not be a vehicle for "bootstrapping" unfounded allegations. [West v. Sundance Development Co., 169 Ariz. 579, 584 (App. 1991)]. In West, for example, an expert was not permitted to testify about the effect of alcohol on plaintiff "if she had consumed more than 17 ounces of wine," where there was no evidence she had consumed that amount. Id. It was of no moment that "the jury did not have to believe her testimony as to the amount she drank." Id.

B. Ross's disclosed opinions are not appropriate topics of expert testimony.
Even if Ross's proposed testimony could somehow clear the insurmountable relevance hurdles, his disclosed opinions are not appropriate topics of expert testimony under Rule 702.6 This is true both because the opinions Ross professes would not "assist the trier of fact" within the meaning of Arizona law, and because Ross is not qualified to offer such opinions.

1. Ross's testimony regarding why participants did not leave the sweat lodge is not an appropriate topic for expert testimony.
As an initial matter, Ross's reasoning appears to follow a track that Rule 702 forbids. In Ross's view, leaders or participants of "LGATs" exhibit certain behavioral profiles, and the individuals in this case therefore must have behaved in accordance with those alleged tendencies.
Rule 702 bars this course. An expert testifying as to general behavioral tendencies may not opine on whether or why a particular victim behaved in a particular way during the incident under review. [Montijo, 160 Ariz. at 580 ("psychiatric autopsy" not admissible to "inform the trier not only about decedent's character but what decedent did and why he did it on the night of his death")]. This type of opinion, Arizona courts have held, does not "assist the trier of fact" for purposes of Rule 702. See Moran, 151 Ariz. at 385 ("we do not believe the jury needs an expert to explain that the victim's behavior is consistent or inconsistent with the crime having occurred"); Montijo, 160 Ariz. at 580. Such testimony does no more than advise the jury on how to decide the case. Montijo, 160 Ariz. at 580.
Moreover, the State may not avoid Rule 702's prohibition by asking Ross hypothetical questions.7 In State v. Tucker, the prosecution offered "hypotheticals" that asked the expert "whether the specific facts of this case ... fit into the child molesting pattern that he had described." 165 Ariz. 340, 348 (App. 1990). These questions were held improper. As the court explained, the so-called hypotheticals were "nothing more than the expert explaining to the jury how the child's testimony was, in fact, consistent with the crime having occurred"--the very approach "condemned in Moran." Id. at 349.

2. Ross is not qualified to offer expert opinions regarding JRI participants' mental states.
Furthermore, regardless of the reasoning he employs, Ross is plainly not qualified to offer expert testimony in this case. Pursuant to Rule 702, "[t]he court must determine whether the witness' expertise is applicable to the subject about which he intends to testify, and specifically whether the witness' training and experience qualify him to render opinions which will be useful to the trier of fact." Lay v. City of Mesa, 168 Ariz. 552, 554 (App. 1991) (emphasis added). "A witness must indicate that his training and experience qualify him to render enlightened opinions and draw sophisticated conclusions from the particular type of evidence available in a given accident." Englehart v. Jeep Corp., 122 Ariz. 256, 258 (Ariz. 1979).
The State seeks to elicit Ross's opinions on the mental states of JRI participants on the night of October 8, 2009. Yet Ross has never met or spoken to any of the participants. Nor has he met or spoken with Mr. Ray, or had any first-hand experience, ever, with a JRI seminar.8 Ross cannot be said to have any "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" regarding the 2009 sweat lodge that would qualify him as an expert under Rule 702. These glaring deficiencies flatly bar Ross's proposed testimony.9
The State cannot avoid Ross's lack of relevant experience by portraying him as an expert who is qualified to "educate the jury" on the general attributes and criteria of NLP or LGAT. As an initial matter, it is highly doubtful that these theories are appropriate topics for expert testimony at all. Even apparently credentialed witnesses have been barred from offering related testimony on the ground that the theories lack scientific acceptance. See United States v. Fishman, 743 F. Supp. 713, 720 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (excluding under Frye v. United States the "coercive persuasion" testimony of Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe--two psychologists extensively cited in Ross's Expert Witness Report--for lack of scientific acceptance). In any event, by his own admission during his interview, Ross is not an expert in NLP. As for LGAT, which Ross describes as a term of art among psychiatrists and psychologists but for which he cannot provide an academically accepted definition, Ross lacks any of the qualifications one might expect to see in an expert in psychiatry or psychology: he has no higher education, no specialized training, has never worked in the mental health field, and has never worked with any of the people whose studies he describes. It would strain credulity for the State to argue that Ross could somehow educate the jury on these supposedly sophisticated theories--in which Ross himself has no education and for which he cannot provide any more than summaries of the work of others--or apply them to the facts of this case.

C. To the extent any balancing is required, Ross's proposed testimony should be excluded under Rule 403.
The irrelevance of Ross's opinions, and their inadmissibility under Rule 702 and 703, obviate the need for a 403 balancing analysis here. See, e.g., Moran, 151 Ariz. at 382 (a "Rule 403 balancing situation" does not arise where "Rule 702 precludes admission"). Any such balancing, however, would clearly favor excluding the testimony as unfairly prejudicial. Ross is a self-proclaimed expert in "destructive cults, controversial groups and movements." Ross Report at 1. He plans to testify regarding his theories on nefarious "mind control" and "thought reform." Id. at 2. He will opine, moreover, that "[t]he net results of such persuasion techniques . .. can be quite destructive, rendering those involved largely unable to think independently and/or critically and therefore essentially defenseless." Id. at 5. Finally, Ross's opinion is that "[t]hese techniques ... may produce 'psychiatric causalities"' (a term Ross was unable to define in his interview). Id. The prejudice infused in such opinions is not subtle, and it far outweighs any probative value the testimony could have. See, e.g., U.S. v. Fishman, 743 F.Supp. 713, 722 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (sociology professor Ofshe's testimony on the "thought reform" practices of the Church of Scientology "has a probative value which is substantially outweighed by its danger of unfair prejudice").

D. The State may not use Ross's testimony to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence
In earlier motions and correspondence, the State indicated its intent to provide Ross with "video and other documentation" regarding other "several JRI events." State's Bench Memorandum Regarding 404(b) Acts at 2. The State suggested that it would then seek to introduce such materials into evidence. See id. Ross's Expert Witness Report mentions no such materials, however, and in his interview he stated that he had been provided no materials other than the State's PowerPoint presentation. The Defense therefore assumes the State no longer intends to provide Ross with such materials or introduce them into evidence. The Defense reserves, however, its right to object to any opinions based on such materials and the introduction of any such materials into evidence. See generally Ariz. R. Evid. 703.

IV. CONCLUSION The testimony the State seeks to elicit at trial from Rick Ross is inadmissible for multiple independent reasons. Furthermore, Ross's opinions are so dubious, and their connection to this case so remote, that their introduction at this trial would imperil its fundamental fairness. The testimony should be excluded.

notes: 1 References to Ross's statements are based on notes taken at the Defense's interview of Ross on January 21, 2011. Attorneys from both sides attended and recorded the interview, but a transcript has not yet been prepared.
2 This is the same PowerPoint presentation given to the medical examiners which the State had refused to disclose to the Defense under a claim of attorney work product.
3 The State has also disclosed to the Defense that in 1976, Ross was convicted of the felony of conspiracy to commit grand theft.
4 See Defendant's Reply in support of MIL to Exclude YouTube Videos, filed 1/10/2011, at 3.
5 Moreover, as the Court noted in its recent ruling on Defendant's Motion to Exclude Evidence of Financial Condition, a victim's mental state is not relevant to a reckless manslaughter charge unless the "defendant is aware that a particular mental state of another person will result in the other person being placed at such a risk by the conduct of the defendant, the mental state of the other person is relevant to the question of whether the defendant acted recklessly." See Court's Under Advisement Ruling Regarding on Defendant's Motion in Limine (No. 2), January 13, 2011, page 4. Here, even if the State could prove that some participants decided not to leave the sweat lodge because of some words or actions by Mr. Ray, the State could not prove that Mr. Ray knew that participants had such a mental state. All evidence--in particular, of Mr. Ray instructing people that they could leave the sweat lodge, and of people in fact coming and going throughout the ceremony--was to the contrary.
6 Rule 702 provides: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." Ariz. R. Evid. 702.
7 Neither Ross nor the State has articulated exactly what "hypothetical" questions the State intends to ask.
8 In his defense interview (but not his expert witness report), Ross stated that he once received a phone call from someone who claimed she had attended JRI seminars. Ross did not recall the person's name or the details of the call and thus cannot verify if the person actually ever did attend a JRI event..
9 Furthermore, the materials Ross has relied on to learn about the 2009 sweat lodge--media and interne stories and a PowerPoint presentation prepared by the prosecution--would seem to form the basis for exclusion under Rule 703. These are not the materials "reasonably relied upon" by experts in any relevant field of expertise.

DATED: January 24th, 2011
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
BRAD D. BRIAN
LUIS LI
TRUC T. DO
MIRIAM L. SEIFTER
THOMAS K. KELLY

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


More on Rick Ross case " State of Arizona v. James Arthur Ray, Case No. V1300CR201080049, Defendant James Arthur Ray's Response to State's Motion in Limine re: Witness Rick Ross"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53037279/State-of-Arizona-v-James-Arthur-Ray-Case-No-V1300CR201080049-Defendant-James-Arthur-Ray%E2%80%99s-Response-to-State%E2%80%99s-Motion-in-Limine-re-Witness-Rick-Ros

mirror

http://wikisource.org/wiki/State_of_Arizona_v._James_Arthur_Ray,_Case_No._V1300CR201080049,_Defendant_James_Arthur_Ray's_Response_to_State's_Motion_in_Limine_re:_Witness_Rick_Ross

http://archive.org/details/ResponseToMotionToExcludeTestimonyOfRickRoss-StateOfArizonV.James

STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff,
vs.
JAMES ARTHUR RAY, Defendant.

CASE NO. V 13000R201080049
February 3, 2011
Hon. Warren Darrow
DIVISION PTB
DEFENDANT JAMES ARTHUR RAY'S RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE RE: WITNESS RICK ROSS

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
By highlighting Rick Ross's criminal history and violent and unlawful "professional" practices, the State's motion in limine forcefully underscores the reasons Ross should be excluded as an expert witness. See Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 9 to Exclude Testimony of Rick Ross (filed Jan. 24, 2011). As the Defense has noted, the State's attempt to call Ross as an expert on the psychological effects of self-help seminars threatens this trial's integrity. Ross is strikingly unqualified to offer expert testimony; he lacks education or training in any mental health field, has a history of lawbreaking, and is a self-proclaimed "activist" with a highly controversial agenda. Moreover, Ross's inflammatory "conclusions" lack any connection to the evidence in this case.
If this Court denies Mr. Ray's motion and permits Ross to testify as an expert, the Constitution's Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause require the Court to allow Mr. Ray full and complete cross-examination regarding Ross's qualifications, conclusions, and credibility. "The right of confrontation, which includes the right to cross-examine witnesses, is a fundamental right." State v. Correll, 148 Ariz. 468, 473 (Ariz. 1986) (citing and quoting Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403-04 (1965)). Moreover, years of Arizona case law emphasize that "[t]rial courts must give great latitude for full and complete cross-examination of expert witnesses." Gasiorowski v. Hose, 182 Ariz. 376,381 (App. 1995). A complete cross-examination here includes the categories the State seeks to cordon off: Ross's dubious and unlawful professional activities and his criminal history. These facts bear on Ross's qualifications as an expert, the reliability of his opinions, and the bias of his testimony. The State cannot restrict cross-examination into these vital matters simply because some of these facts--all of which are admitted on Ross's own website--are inconvenient or embarrassing. "The State could ... protec[t]" Ross "from exposure" of this information in court "by refraining from using him to make out its case." Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 320 (1974). But "the State cannot, consistent with the right of confrontation," require Mr. Ray to forego questioning that will allow the jury to "appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of Mr. Ross and his purported expert opinions. Id. The State's motion must be denied.

II. ARGUMENT
"`Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants 'a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense."' Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735, 789-90 (2006) (quoting Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324, (2006)). In particular, the Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to confront witnesses against them through cross-examination, which is 'one of the safeguards essential to a fair trial."' Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404 (1965). The cross-examination right includes the ability to "revea[1] possible biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives of the witness." Davis, 415 U.S. at 316. And because the right to complete cross-examination of adverse witnesses is "so vital a constitutional right," id. at 320, it is reversible error for a trial court to bar a defendant from "expos[ing] to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness." Id. at 318.
The need for fulsome confrontation is increased where expert witnesses are concerned. Arizona law recognizes the need for trial courts to give particularly "great latitude for full and complete" cross-examination and impeachment of expert witnesses. Hose, 182 Ariz. at 381; Youngblood v. Austin, 102 Ariz. 74, 77 (1967) ("[W]ide latitude is permitted in the cross-examination of a witness, and the courts are particularly liberal in allowing full and complete examination of an expert witness." (quoting Brazee v. Morris, 65 Ariz. 291 (1947)). Indeed, "Arizona has a long-favored practice of allowing full cross-examination of expert witnesses, including inquiry about the expert's sources, relations with the hiring party and counsel, possible bias, and prior opinions." E.g., Arizona Independent Redistricting Com'n v. Fields, 206 Ariz. 130, 143 (App. 2003). A defendant confronting an adverse expert witness must be permitted to explore comprehensively the witness's "qualifications as an expert," the validity of his conclusions, and the nature and extent of his expertise. See Hose, 182 Ariz. at 381, 382. Of grave import here, it is reversible error to permit a party to "present a one-sided version" of an expert's "qualifications and expertise." Id. at 382.

A. Mr. Ray is entitled to explore Ross's qualifications and reliability as an expert, including his professional practices and criminal history.
Mr. Ray's constitutional right to fully explore Ross's qualifications and the reliability of his expert conclusions includes the right to inform the jury of Ross's extreme professional practices and criminal history. Ross, it bears emphasis, is a self-proclaimed "exper[t] offering analysis in destructive cults, controversial groups and movements." Ross Expert Witness Report at 2. The State seeks to introduce his testimony to "educate" the jury on various nebulous concepts that Ross asserts are grounded in psychology. As explained in the Defense Motion in Limine to exclude Ross from trial, there are several deeply troubling defects in this attempt. Ross's alleged field of expertise is itself highly questionable; in the Defense interview or Ross, he was not able to provide academically accepted definitions of the apparent terms of art he uses. See Defendant's Motion in Limine at 4. To the extent such a field exists, Ross is strikingly unqualified to provide "expert" opinions in it; he has no formal education or any specialized training of any kind in his purported field. Indeed, despite the fact that the State has sought to designate Ross as an expert in neuro-lingustic programming, he admitted during his interview that he was not an expert on the topic. See Defendant's Motion in Limine at 1, 8, 9. And the "work" Ross does engage in--archiving internet posts, labeling as cults a wide range of religious groups, and, most notably here, forcibly detaining and "deprogramming" alleged cult members--is reflective of an activist with a controversial agenda, not an expert witness. Should the Court admit his testimony despite his utter lack of qualifications, it must allow the jury to receive sufficient information about Ross' bias and criminal record to evaluate his credibility. Logerquist v. McVey, 196 Ariz. 470, 488 (Ariz. 2000) ("It is the jury's function to determine accuracy, weight, or credibility.").
1. Mr. Ross is entitled to cross-examination regarding Ross's continued practice of forcible cult deprogramming.
The State first seeks to preclude evidence and inquiry regarding "Mr. Ross's practices regarding cult deprogramming." State's Motion at 4. This effort must fail.
a. Ross's continued practice of forcible "cult deprogramming" is directly relevant to his qualifications as an expert and the bias of his testimony.
Ross's violent deprogramming activities are squarely and directly relevant to his qualifications as an expert and to the bias of his testimony. In order for the jury to understand what Ross does--and whether his opinions warrant their acceptance--the jury must know what it means to be an "expert" in "cult deprogramming, controversial groups and movements." See generally Logerquist, 196 Ariz. at 488 (jury is ultimate arbiter of the weight and credibility of expert witness testimony). This is particularly vital where the witness's "field" is not one with which most jurors are familiar. The Defense is entitled to ask questions that permit the jury to understand the basis for Ross's beliefs, the nature of his work, and the types of tactics he employs.
The record to date shows that Ross's practice of abducting unconsenting individuals and attempting to force them to renounce their religious or personal beliefs is an integral part of his "work" and his qualification as an expert. Indeed, Ross's CV does not identify him as an expert in "LGAT"--the topic to which the State now seeks to limit cross-examination--and he has not been qualified as such by any court of law. His interne postings and the speaking engagements he identifies in his CV pertain to cults, not "LGAT." And the opinions he has disclosed regarding so-called LGATs derive from his opinions regarding cults. See Transcript of Interview of Rick Ross, 1/21/11, at 32:26-33:2, 36:22-23 (stating, regarding LGATs, that "you look at whether" a group exhibits the same criteria that "define a destructive cult"). The State is not permitted to excise one speck of Ross's purported knowledge for presentation to the jury, and cordon off the full picture of his "work" from the jury's view. Precluding inquiry into Mr. Ross's alarming professional tactics and the tools of his trade--which include handcuffs and duct tape--would violate Mr. Ray's rights by permitting the State "to present a one-sided version of Ross's "qualifications and expertise." Hose, 182 Ariz. at 381.
In addition, Ross's "work" as a forcible cult deprogrammer reveals his bias as a witness, which serves as an independent basis for relevance. See Davis, 415 U.S. at 316 ("The partiality of a witness is subject to exploration at trial, and is 'always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony."' (quoting 3A J. Wigmore, Evidences 940 p.775 (Chadbourn rev. 1970)). See also id. at 320 (holding that "effective cross-examination for bias of an adverse witness" is "so vital a constitutional right" that it outweighs "[t]he State's policy interest in protecting the confidentiality of a juvenile offenders record"). Ross is a self-proclaimed "activist." See, e.g., Cult Deprogramming: An Examination of the Intervention Process, Dec. 20, 2010 (article posted on Ross's cult news website and listed in his expert witness report) ("I then became an anti-cult community activist and organizer"). He devotes his time to aggressively seeking to eliminate the sway of cults and "controversial groups," terms he defines extremely inclusively (including, for example, Mormons, Chabad, and Jehovah's Witnesses). Moreover, Ross actively seeks media coverage of his sensational opinions; most of his CV is devoted to his appearances on television or in print. In view of these facts, the jury may well conclude that Ross's opinions in this case are not those of a dispassionate observer. Mr. Ray must be able to expose to the jury the context of--and potential bias underlying--Ross's opinions.
b. The State has identified no legally valid reason for excluding evidence of Ross's continued practice of forcible cult deprogramming.
Without even mentioning the Confrontation Clause, the State asserts that the Defense must not inquire on cross-examination into "Mr. Ross's practices regarding cult deprogramming" because (1) "the State does not intend to call Mr. Ross as an expert on cult deprogramming"; because (2) exposure of Ross's practices will cause unfair prejudice to the State's case; because (3) the practices are too remote in time to be relevant; and because (4) impeachment on collateral matters is prohibited. All four arguments are misplaced.
First, Arizona law does not restrict cross-examination to matters addressed in direct examination. Rather, cross-examination is permitted on any relevant subject. See Hose, 182 Ariz. at 376; Ariz. R. Evid. 611 ("A witness may be cross-examined on any relevant matter."). As set forth above, Ross's forcible deprogrammings are directly relevant to his qualifications and bias.
Accordingly, the State's second argument also fails; there is no unfair prejudice here, and the probative value of the information would easily outweigh any such prejudice. See Hose, 182 Ariz. at 381 (a party's "right to prove and challenge ... expert testimony" receives "particular weight" in the 403 balancing analysis); Davis, 415 U.S. at 320 (a State can protect a witness from unwanted exposure of information by refraining from using the witness to make out its case).
Third, Ross's deprogramming practices are hardly remote. The State's assertion that Mr. Ross "has not engaged in any activities involving the forcible detention and deprogramming of adult cult members since 1990," State's Motion at 2, omits that Ross was still litigating the civil judgment against him in the Jason Scott case as recently as 1997. See Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 9, at 3; see also Scott v. Ross, 120 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1998). In addition, as the State acknowledges, Ross "still occasionally does" forcible deprogrammings "with juvenile cult members." State's Motion at 2 (emphasis added). Do such forcible deprogrammings also involve abducting people, handcuffing them, taping their mouths shut and spiriting them off to hidden locations? If so, the jury should be permitted to evaluate whether such practices are consistent with a dispassionate expert or a zealot.
Fourth, the State's assertion that "impeachment on collateral issues is not allowed," State's Motion at 5, is correct but irrelevant here. Mr. Ray is not attempting to impeach Ross on a collateral matter. "Evidence is collateral if it could not properly be offered for any purpose independent of the contradiction." State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 325 (1993). The bias and prejudice of a witness is never a collateral matter. See, e.g., Davis, 415 U.S. at 316. As the Arizona courts have explained, "[a]n effort to impeach on a collateral matter differs significantly from an effort to affirmatively prove motive or bias. Rule 608(b) restricts the former; the sixth amendment protects the latter." State v. Gertz, 186 Ariz. 38, 42 (1996).

2. Ross's felony conviction bears on his qualifications as an expert.
Ross was convicted of conspiracy to commit grand theft embezzlement from a jewelry store--in 1976. This felony conviction, like his deprogramming practices, bears on his expert qualifications. Mr. Ray is entitled to present to the jury a full and fair view of Ross's controversial career. Jurors should be permitted to know, among other facts, that Ross is not an expert who has followed a traditional path of scholarship. To the contrary, although the State will ask Ross to opine on apparently technical concepts and psychological phenomena, Ross has no higher education or specialized training whatsoever. Rather than attending college, Ross spent time as a small-time criminal and jewel thief, and became an "expert" apparently by his own say-so. From information about Ross's professional and criminal history--and the intersection of the two--the jurors, "as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of Ross and his opinions. Davis, 415 U.S. at 318.
To be sure, courts sometimes exclude evidence of felony convictions, particularly "stale" convictions, where the information is more prejudicial than probative. But "[w]here the witness is a non-defendant, the trial court must not only consider the provisions of Rule 609(a) but must also consider the rights of a defendant to confront the witnesses against him." State v. Conroy, 131 Ariz. 528, 530 (App. 1982) (holding that it was reversible error for the trial court to exclude evidence of witness's prior felony conviction, where the defense theory was that witness was not credible; witness's rape conviction was germane to his credibility). Moreover, it bears repeating, Ross is being presented as an expert witness, and his criminal history affects whether the jury will conclude that Ross's purported "field" of expertise is legitimate, and whether his specific conclusions are reliable. See Hose, 182 Ariz. at 382.
The State asserts that "the extraordinary rehabilitation demonstrated by Mr. Ross indicates there is no probative value whatsoever" to his felony conviction. State's Motion at 3. The State is free to make that argument at trial. But the question whether Ross's conduct reflects rehabilitation (a dubious characterization at best), and the weight to be given to his behavior, are for the jury to decide. The State is not permitted, by stroke of the pen, to bar the Defense from asking critical questions about a highly controversial and inflammatory witness.

B. Ross's felony conviction is also admissible under Rule 609
In addition to its relevance to Ross's expert qualifications, Ross's felony conviction is admissible for general impeachment purposes pursuant to Rule 609. By separate filing on this date, the Defense has provided notice of intent to introduce the felony conviction into evidence. Although Ross's conviction is well more than 10 years old, the conviction is more probative than prejudicial because it reflects a crime of dishonesty (embezzlement), and because Ross is an expert witness, regarding whom Mr. Ray is constitutionally entitled to pursue a full and complete cross-examination.I See Conroy, 131 Ariz. at 530.

III. CONCLUSION
"There are few subjects" upon which [the Supreme] Court and other courts have been more nearly unanimous than in their expressions of belief that the right of confrontation and cross-examination is an essential and fundamental requirement for the kind of fair trial which is this country's constitutional goal." Pointer, 380 U.S. at 405. Those bedrock constitutional principles bar the State's motion. Mr. Ray is entitled to elicit for the jury the full extent--or lack thereof--of Ross's qualifications and reliability, including his forcible "deprogramming" practices and his criminal history.

1 The State's motion suggests that the Defense notice is untimely. That suggestion is misplaced. The Defense received the State's confirmation of disclosure regarding the felony convictions of its witnesses on February 2, 2011, and filed the Rule 609 notice immediately thereafter. Furthermore, the notice requirement of Rule 609(b) exists to avoid surprise, and the State's motion in limine specifically raising the issue of the criminal conviction of its own witness--makes obvious that the State is subject to no surprise here.
DATED: February 3rd, 2011
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
BRAD D. BRIAN
LUIS LI
TRUC T. DO
MIRIAM L. SEIFTER
THOMAS K. KELLY

Click to get back to topic starter

@anticultist Sure Rick can bannish people because it's his stuff and he can do as he pleases on his communication mediums. I have nothing against Rick I don't know him, but based on my correspondence with the guy I think he's a bit overly sensitive which makes him do and think in crazy ways. The fact Rick would barr Steve Hasaan's material off his site because he got upset over one situation with Steve says enough about Rick's mentality, credibility, and academic integrity. Even if Rick does not like Steve, if Steve produces good work you should not pretend he never existed that's just plan dishonest on a academic level. For sure Rick can do that but that doesn't put Rick in a good light.

If you read through my short e-mail correspondence with Rick at first Rick was upset because he claimed I was argumentative which to an extent yes but in comparison to everybody else I wasn't as bad as them on this thread and my intent was to has a discussion not be argumentative. The material I ripped on Trumpet Gods of Calling was copywrited which it was not on the site rules matter in fact I proved that based on RR.cm site rules each author who posts on the site owns there own posts and the site isn't responsible for what a individual author says on there site. In this situation on RR.com I simply wanted to put my thoughts up on TVP but it progressed into why I don't think internet cults exists on the internet do to the bases there isn't enough academic studies done, which Rick said he has done showed me the study, and then I said that one and only small relevant paragraph within the study doesn't really answer my question (published in I think a Chinese academic journal I never even heard of mind you). Corboy (Rick Ross modd) stepped in and suggested I think internet cults exists and showed a old OWS link where I called TZM a cult at which I showed them a link where I reconsidered my thoughts on internet cults. At that I attempted to have discourse on what academic material would need to be made/looked into more about internet cults. At which they tell me to research more at which I have mainly on Steve Hassan's work and various other websites and academic journals.

I began to show them a website on how to prove there claims properly and suggested they follow that. Rick has a tendency almost all the time to throw down anecdotal evidence as fact from the things I did read about him. Although anecdotal evidence is ok it's not great and should never be pushed as fact that's only just the start in a more detailed quantitative work later on. Anyways that's when he got upset and banished me without telling me I was banished, at which I started a e-mail correspondence and found out I was banished. Usually when Rick banishes people lets say a cult advocate off his site he informs the site members that he banishes them in my case he did not.

I actually was trying to have a academic discourse in the end with Rick but apparently that didn't happen. I do not perceive my actions as being rude or anything just merely questioning the way he goes about things in a academic sense at which I think he got upset because Rick is overly sensitive about such subjects. In my opinion I do not think I was banished on the bases because I violated rules as I wasn't as bad as anyone else in that topic I think it was mainly because I did not agree with Rick on internet cults, then proceeded to say his academic evidence he made is no good, then tried to help him with how to make and present better academic evidence because I also have a interest in studying potential internet cults as well and would appreciate a proper study on this subject.

In this case if being a troll at that a academic troll means suggesting ways a person can produce more serious academic works on this subject then so be it. I'm not affiliated with a cult (as far as I know), as I'm just a regular person who has an opinion who knows what good academic studies look like. The academic journals I did read that Rick made are nice anecdotal pieces published on obscure (published in Chinese journals) so called academic journals but there not academic studies one bit from the ones I read. Rick needs a better understanding of how to write a proper academic studies.

hat's just a drop in the bucket as to Rick's problems though (a major one but just a drop). All this aside in my opinion I think Rick should leave it to the medical professionals when it comes to cults and would strongly urge the guy the step down from the field of being a cult pseudo experts, what Rick is doing is dangerous. I have some more information I'll post up later as to why I have a problem with what Rick does. I looked into what other cult experts have done so I have a more rounded perspective on what should and shouldn't be doing.


Reference
Rick claims I ripped copyright material off his site from the Trumpet call of God thread.
http://other.skepticproject.com/forum/5360/learning-more-about-internet-based-cults/

Look at the comparison of his site compared to james randi's website and forum:

RickRoss.com and forum traffic
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/rickross.com#

James Randi.org and forum traffic
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/randi.org

Randi has been a source of information in the same way Rick Ross has and Randi covers everything and more than Ross does.

I am not a member of randi's forum, but I read it.

Yeah I think that is why Fresco likes people to pay to see him, he can use his manipulation techniques on them face to face. He can't use them in a therapeutic sense without getting into legal problems, but using them in his 'research centre' environment he can use all the tricks in the book to inculcate people and get them to support him financially.

Have you heard of any casualties from Rick Ross's de-programming conduct after he was taken to court and found guilty ? Or has he ceased acting on the information, and just runs that website ?

Click to get back to topic starter


In Rick Ross banter against Steve Hassan the only references he mentions who oppose Steve Hassan are two individuals with credentials who are Monica Pignotti (masters in social work, PHD in social work from Florida) and Cathleen Mann (PHD in psychology university unknown).

Praise and reference of Rick Ross for Monica and Mann

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,103844,108560
rrmoderator:
Re: "Jesus Christians," "Australian cult," Dave McKay (thread 2)
yasmin:

If you look through Monica Pignotti's blog you will see some of the concerns.

I have personally received complaints regarding Steve Hassan's fees and treatment of potential clients.





http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,103844,108548
zeuszor:

Steve Hassan's methods (SIA, the BITE model) have been crtiticized by psychologist and court expert Cathleen Mann and Monica Pignotti, PhD. Both recognized professionals in the field of cultic studies once worked closely with Steve, but disassociated themselves from him due to ethical concerns.

And though Steve Hassan does have a masters degree, it is my understanding that he has only once attempted to testify as a court expert witness and his testimony was largely discounted and dismissed by the judge.



http://web.archive.org/web/20130731234203/http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?7,111783
rrmoderator:

"what more seasoned people thought of Steve Hassan"?

I have been working in the area of cults for 30 years and have testified as an expert in court within 10 states, including US Federal Court.

As a "seasoned" experienced professional in the field of cults I would not recommend Steve Hassan and/or his books.

Psychologist and expert Cathleen Mann recently reviewed the book "Freedom of Mind" by Steve Hassan.

See http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2444

Not exactly a recommendation.

Again, there are much better books readily available.

Picture of Monia Pignotti

When I go looking into these two ladies first I find out that Monica Pignotti is a complete nut bag as she was previously in two cults the first cult is Scientology from 1970 to 1976. She was also into Thought Field Therapy and its advanced version Voice Technology which in short thought field therapy is " it can heal a variety of mental and physical ailments through specialized "tapping" with the fingers at meridian points on the upper body and hands.". She was in TFT until around 2004. She was apparently with a fringe group whose leaders are Larry Sarner and Linda Rosa, who attacks therapists who help orphans. On top of all of this insanity she's fat, never been married with no child, and FUGLY.

Lets not forget her background is in social work at which isn't that hard to become a social worker and it short the job mostly involves helping either disturbed, low income, drug addicts into integrate into society better. This by no means she is really qualified to be a cult expert or help cult members based on her credentials. That means any input on Steve Hassan's practices are null and void and are not of expert opinion, however integrating disturbed people back into society is what she would be a expert and credentials into talking about.

Monica worked with Steve Hassan for a bit, she first developed a problem with Steve Hassan over allowing of a individual by the name of Dennis Erlich of allowing access to a server list. The server list that is referred is much like RR.com'swas a way of recording cults and other information on website. Monica got so upset that she eventually left the group because of Denniss as well as got upset with Rick for not doing anything to Dennis when requested. After dissociating herself from Steve in 2009, she goes across the internet in a one person active campaign against Steve Hassan.

On wikipedia under the name MonicaPignotti she can be seen on Steve Hassan's wikipedia history page editing things on Steve Hassan Wikipedia. I do not see Monica editing things on anybody elses including Rick Ross wikipedia page yet she's clearly focused on this one and only person to the extent of it no longer within her own communication mediums but on other realms outside (on a consistent bases) to the extent of an obsession.

Wikipedia history where MonicaPignotti is the main contributor too.


At that if you google Monica Pignotti there are literally hundreds of sites about her. The first few you hit are made by her and it just gets a bit insane how much she tries to attempt to do damage control on her imagine. To the extent that she will go on a website that talks bad about her almost all the time.

The fact that Rick Ross refers to her site as some type of expert opinion is academically wrong. She's not a expert as far as judging a way a person practice she has a opinion but not a expert. At that I have not found 1 academic journal that Monica has written besides on Thought Field Therapy.

Why would Rick Ross brag about such insanity? Maybe because she has the qualification he doesn't have. How pathetic he would do such a thing. She doesn't even have the specifics credentials that would validate her criticism towards Steve Hassan in academic terms. Monica Pignotti is upset because Steve wouldn't discipline one person and now she's on a greifers campaign because of it. Pathetic....


Reference:

http://practitionersofquackery.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/is-there-hope-for-monica-pignotti/

http://blinkercat.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/monica-pignotti-nine-lives-in-scientology/

The Thought Field Therapy (TFT) Trauma Relief Tapping Algorithm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlwUdtbT4uU

Thought Field Therapy TFT Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT)
http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?8,35015

Thought Field Therapy: A Former Insider's Experience
http://rsw.sagepub.com/content/17/3/392.full.pdf+html

Steve Hassan Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Hassan&action=history

Monica Pignotti And Robert Irvingson: Shills For Morford!
http://www.usenetmessages.com/view.php?c=other&g=6323&id=478494&p=0

Monica's main website
http://site.monicapignotti.net/

Monica Pignotti Wrecks a Home
http://www.cookingjunkies.com/rec-food-cooking/monica-pignotti-wrecks-home-43466.html

Recipes for Sour Grapes?
http://www.foodbanter.com/general-cooking/405660-re-recipes-sour-grapes.html

Cathleen Mann Responds to Dennis Erlich, correcting his Lies about Monica Pignotti
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/alt.religion.scientology/vLOQ4Ygwsso/9gN2YqLfZv4J

Onto Cathleen Mann who is another nut bar that was actually hard to find any information about just by googling. She apparently was in a cult called Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT) for two years.

More information on Cathleen Mann Cut cult experience.
http://irr.org/former-member-describes-cut-abuses

My Nine Lives in Scientology
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/pignotti/



Onto Cathleen Mann who is another nut bar that was actually hard to find any information about just by googling, to the extent I can't find any experience on a academic level of her writing a academic journal or counseling anybody who were in a cult. She apparently was in a cult called Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT) for two years.

More information on Cathleen Mann CUT cult involvement
http://irr.org/former-member-describes-cut-abuses

I have just read a section from a forthcoming book "The Brainwashing Controversy: An Anthology of Essential Documents," edited by J. Gordon Melton and Massimo Introvigne. There is little doubt that all of the major destructive cults will delight in this book. It is such disinformation- amazing to think people accept this as true.

"Mrs. Prophet has published over 50 books in 15 languages. But the books anyone can buy do not tell the real story behind the teachings."
I was a bible scholar and Christian for most of my life before I joined CUT. One of the things that attracted me to this group initially was that Mrs. Prophet stated she was a bible scholar. Little did I know that the doctrine of this group would be presented to me in droplets--and when it was too late, I was hooked. Essentially, CUT is a group with many blended ideas and philosophies. Mark L. Prophet founded this group in 1961. He was a former member of the Theosophical Society, which grew into the Mighy I AM movement in the 1930s, led by Guy and Edna Ballard. Mark left the I AM group in the late 1950s, founded the Bridge to Freedom in Washington, D.C., the precursor to the Summit Lighthouse. Elizabeth and Mark met in 1960 when she was a student at Boston University. They moved their Summit Lighthouse to Colorado Springs. Mark died in 1973. The group then moved to Santa Barbara, California in 1974 still calling itself the Summit Lighthouse. In 1986, Edward Frances, fourth husband of Elizabeth, sought out and bought the former (Malcolm) Forbes Ranch in Paradise Valley, Montana. Partially to eliminate an ongoing IRS probe, the Summit Lighthouse was changed to Church Universal and Triumphant upon the move to Montana. Mrs. Prophet claimed that this name was "the original name of the church established by Jesus."

CUT doctrine is complicated and multi-layered. It mixes Catholicism with conservative Christiantity, with New Age Thought, with American conservative, reactionary politics. CUT hit the big time in the news when in 1990 it was announced that the end of the world was coming, and people flocked to the group's Ranch in droves.

Currently, CUT is in a decline. Partially because of the loss of dynamic leadership in the person of Elizabeth Clare Prophet, who has allegedly been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, and due to many legal and financial problems. Several suits against CUT have begun or are anticipated. A several-million dollar judgement won against CUT in 1980 has been held up on appeal.

Mrs. Prophet has published over 50 books in 15 languages. But the books anyone can buy do not tell the real story behind the "teachings." What follows is an example of the inner doctrine of the group, known only to insiders:

From Cathleen Mann, Clinical Director of Crossroads Counseling Center and former Church Universal and Triumphant member.

An Open Letter to Dr. J. Gordon Melton and others similarily situated (i.e., don't believe in mind control):

Have any of you read Melton's monograph "Church Universal and Triumphant in Scholarly Perspective?" Do you think that was legitimate social research??

Do you think he knew or told the truth?

Here are some specifics regarding my CUT experience in reference to mind control. But, let me say by way of preface, that I agree that I was not "brainwashed." Because this is such an extreme word, most people recoil when they hear it.

But, yes, even though at times I was aware of the process, I was under mind control for the two years I was a keeper of the flame with CUT, and for the shorter period of time I spent shadowing and interacting with Mrs. Prophet. I signed a document called "The Sons and Daughters of Dominion" after 4 hours of grilling by Mrs. Prophet. She asked me one night after midnight after I had sat with her as she held court - to give her my "light." I knew something was wrong here, but I knew that if I didn't do exactly as she said, that she would kill me. Now, I know that sounds melodramatic, but it is how I felt.

You are familiar with Lifton's eight criteria of mind control, I believe. Allow me to use those criteria in relation to my CUT experience:

1. Milieu Control -- Levels of staff membership; secret societies within that membership; living in teaching centers; marathon major sessions on Friday and Saturday nights, when most people socialize or have family time; renting rooms to other Keepers/members; probationary periods at Mrs. Prophet's total discretion; never driving in a car alone; four cars become one car so no one knows how many people are really living on the ranch; having a "decree buddy" at all times to check your decrees as they check yours; tag decree session which go for 24 hours, 7 days a week.

2. Mystical Manipulation -- Personal messages from the Masters via Mrs. Prophet; Mrs. Prophet must approve all dating and marriages, types of sexual relations and frequency; the "5 minute rule" - not being allowed to talk to a member of the opposite sex if unmarried without written permission in advance; Mrs. Prophet naming all babies of communicants and approving all names of babies of Keepers; sending people on "secret" missions for the masters; Mrs. Prophet has all the answers always.

3. Demand for Purity -- The Camelot Kitchen recipes; the 5 Escene diet; macrobiotic diet; fasting; use of protein powder instead of the real thing; required upper colonics; no red, black or orange clothing; only can drive a blue car in Mrs. Prophet's presence; no fluoride; no sugar; no soft drinks; no chocolate; no coffee; all women's clothes must hang down and be loose fitting; bingeing and purging using spirit of Ipecac; carrots as the only food that would grow at 10,000 feet--carrot factories, carrot drying plant, carrots being declared "the food of the masters"--carrot juice, carrot cake, carrot pies, carrot bread, carrot stew, carrot soup, and on and on.

4. Cult of Confession -- Lengthy clearance letters for all keepers and other members; keepers of the flame signed statement to keep secret the teachings upon pain of death; must return all CUT materials if you leave; letters to explain why you want to live on the Ranch; special documents to purge homosexual thoughts, mental illness in self or family. Special dispensation to join group if you have EVER said the word f--k, sh-t, etc. requiring a waiting period of up to 6 months for the "masters" (Mrs. Prophet) to decide.

5. Sacred Science -- Decreeing constantly; violet flame; tube of light cloak to protect you from demons, enemies of CUT, entities; discarnates, salamanders, nephilim, giant races, mole people; put on cloak of invisibility; blue lightning decree--BOLT, BOLT, SMASH, CONSUME, DISSOLVE done 3 x 3 x 3 times; no use of aluminum foil (attracts UFOs); cabinets and doors must be completely shut at all times; no one can sit in the chair after Mrs. Prophet does or it is witchcraft; astrology for EVERY move or decision.


6. Loading the Language -- Too numerous to list, but here are a few:
the discarnates; Messenger; decree; violet flame; seven rays; great white brotherhood, rewriting lyrics to known songs, but keeping the melody; dark cycle; karma becomes physical; four lower bodies; 3 buddhas in this dispensation; three fold flame; twin flames; spark of light; four horsemen of the Apocalypse; fiery inner core; OM; Lanello, Lady Portia, Cosmic Honor Guard.

7. Doctrine over person -- Being told to put "it on the shelf" until you can believe it: The two rules of the ashram: OBEY IMMEDIATELY and KEEP SILENT posted over every door in every building or home of every keeper or higher member; progressive revelation to dispute "mistakes" in prophecy; level of staff service, each level keeps secrets above and below; inner circles within circles; red is a perversion of the ruby ray -- only Mrs. Prophet can wear red; things revealed to you by the "masters" on a need to know basis only; Mrs. Prophet telling people their past embodiments; dead members being discussed and shown on the big screen (10 x 18) in community meeting with only Mrs. Prophet knowing what dimension they went to, or if they ascended at all; people told after 10 years of constant decreeing that their "efforts" were null and void; Mrs. Prophet telling members to put a picture of Archangel Michael on their car if they drove off the property.

8. Dispensing of Existence -- Many are called, but few are chosen; nine buddhas revealed; 144,000 lightbearers who hold the entire world in their hands; if you have or had an abortion, then you will be an abortion for the next 9 lifetimes; many paths may lead to God, but CUT is the shortest and the fastest; Mrs. Prophet never decreeing herself, never available--always in "retreat", leaving the altar in mid-service if the decrees were not fast enough or strong enough; requiring members to wait, sometimes hours, for her to appear; Mrs. Prophet's 18 minute entrance music.

Others -- You cannot ride a motorcycle because only discarnates ride them, and they masturbate when riding, plus they disrupt the vibrations by the dust and dirt they create. Entities are everywhere! They are in your pants, so you must change your underwear daily. They are in your coffee! The Ascended Masters tell Mrs. Prophet everything instantly! They tell her if you are having sex without permission, you cannot make your ascension if you ever had oral sex, if you wear red, if you have red or black in your house. If you eat meat, Mrs. Prophet can see it in your aura. Grandparents who sleep in the same bed with their grandkids are actually stealing their "light" to stay in embodiment longer.

Dancing a waltz takes away past sin (karma) Hawaii is really a remnant of Mark and Elizabeth's former Kingdom, when they did us the GREAT FAVOR of coming back several lifetimes to now run the cult of CUT.

So, I ask you again -- why were none of these things mentioned in Melton's so-called comprehensive "study," can you tell me that???

Picture of Cathleen Mann (Assuming picture taken in the 1970's)

I googled Cathleen Mann and tried to find any book, video, audio on her. Surprisingly I could only find 1 audio and 1 thing on a website on a review about Steve Hassan. She's virtually unknown otherwise on the cult arena. There is zero reference to what she contributes to the study of cults besides mindless banter that she's against Steve Hassan. Again everything aside she's fat, never been married with no child, old, and FUGLY.

She also got upset at Steve Hassan for not regulating the infighting happen on the list server between Monica and Dennis so she deleted the list server and left Steve Hassan group in 2009. She was pretty much silent about it talking through Monica about what happen until she wrote a review on Rick Ross site about Steve Hassan's recently released book called " Freedom of Mind: Helping Loved Ones Leave Controlling People, Cults, and Beliefs,", at which I did not read the newest book by Steve Hassan but I did read the review by Cathleen Mann and I'd say 95% of it was an attack on a person rather than on the work and attempting to pass that off as academic critique which rather than add credibility it hurts her credibility at which she speaks upon.






Reference:

A Former Member Describes CUT Abuses
http://irr.org/former-member-describes-cut-abuses

The Psychology of Violence Dr. Cathleen Mann - NPTR 31
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/national-progressive-talk-radio/2013/01/07/the-psychology-of-violence-dr-cathleen-mann--nptr-31

Cathleen Mann Responds to Dennis Erlich, correcting his Lies about Monica Pignotti
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/alt.religion.scientology/vLOQ4Ygwsso/9gN2YqLfZv4J

Third installment of Steven Hassan's trilogy adds little understanding
http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2444

Steven Hassan's new book -- critical review by psychologist
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,114193,page=1

Cathleen Mann main website
http://psyris.com/cultspecialist

Conclusion:
If a person googles Monica Pignotti, or Cathleen Mann, they cold probably find other problems with these people as well at which post them up here in this thread. I find Rick Ross toting these two people around that have very obvious confirmation bias as some type of reason to discredit Steve Hassan, as well as makes Rick look more legitimate very laughable (Rick lacks any credentials). There to crazy/emotional and obsessed with Steve Hassan to really examine his work without attacking the person. In short there completely unprofessional when speaking professionally in a academic sense in there fields of study when it comes to Steve Hassan. They attack Steve Hassan not because he's right or wrong on a academic or other level they simply attack the guy because they has one bad experience with the guy.

To note here is Steve Hassan is a class act as he does not actively go after Rick, Monica or Cathleen, which also show's you the professionalism with the guy. His work and integrity speaks for itself. I'm blown back at Monica and Cathleeens insanity spread across the internet it's again simply mind blowing insane I'd never refer nor take these two seriously in a academic sense. I'd actually be ok with these two if they were not speaking from a professional level but just talk just to talk, but since they constantly talk (almost all the time) on the professional level in there insane rants I have to call them out on there crap. I feel sorry for anybody that has to deal with the baggage these two bring on a professional level. Nice try to Rick Ross and trying to make these two be perceived as professional.

This again also speak volumes about Rick Ross integrity. As Rick Ross has said to of ripped all material off RR.com of Steve Hassan, yet the very guy that discredits and barrs Steve Hassan Material is the very person who posts a topic up about a very negative review on Steve Hassan newest book called "Freedom of Mind", that focuses more on the person than on the material within the book. Rick Ross has reveals how butt hurt he is with Steve Hassan because he is successful and how bad he wishes to discredit him which only really discredits Rick Ross when you fully understand why Rick Ross goes after Steve Hassan so much.(http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,114193,page=1) .

I doubt Rick Ross has read the newest book Steve Hassan has wrote though, I mean why would he buy a book/give money to Steve Hassan the man at which is barred from rr.com. The fact he didn't even read the book but is posting up a review of a book from a author who is banned off RR.com (http://www.culteducation.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html#Steven_Hassan) would suggest Ricky has an agenda and will at any cost discredit Steve Hassan not on a academic level but in any way shape possible.

Click to get back to topic starter

So because they're one thread on a forum of a site: it's a Rick Ross flaming site.

Seems legit.

Unrelated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZmCJUSC6g

Did any of you follow the JAR trial? I remember watching parts of the stream, but I don't think I caught Ross' testimony.

Click to get back to topic starter


@anticultist of course he is he should be, he's embarrassed about it to the extent that Rick does not even link to the documents on the page dedicated to James Arthur Ray about the motion to exclude Rick's testimony (Rick your welcome to post that information up, I got it here for you). Here check it out I cannot find documents that motion to exclude Rick Ross's testimony on RR.com but I do find documents to include Rick Ross testimony on rr.com site (reading it now). http://www.culteducation.com/groups/jamesarthur.html

I think the defense lawyers did a great job in attempting to exclude Rick Ross testimony. The motion to exclude Rick Ross's testimony was so thorough. Smart move to convince client JAR to allow the defense team to try and exclude Rick Ross testimony on the bases that he's a crank with no credentials. I was even more surprised that one of the area lawyers who is Thomas K. Kelly had a background in science as he graduated with a degree in chemistry/zoology and for a time taught science ( http://kellydefense.com/personnel/thomas-k-kelly-certified-specialist-criminal-law/ ).


States Response to Defendant's Motion In Limine No. 9 To Exclude the Testimony of Rick Ross
http://www.culteducation.com/reference/jamesarthur/02-08-2011-RESPONSE-TO-MOTION2.pdf

@CyborgJesus

" Did any of you follow the JAR trial? I remember watching parts of the stream, but I don't think I caught Ross' testimony."

Checkout the youtube 10 minute court case
Arizona v. James Arthur Ray in 10 Minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMFMWd6dTQs

I watched it to, I couldn't find anything on Rick's given testimony on the case though I did read something on wayback.com; which maybe the reason why we can't find Rick's testimony to the jury in this case. Rick is correct that he did qualify by the court to give testimony but the prosecution never called Rick to give testimony as the defense was prepared to discredit Rick's credentials with the information they had which would of ultimately of hurt the prosecutions case. I understand why Rick would be so upset (if anybody finds anything on Rick's testimony post it up). Here's what it says on wayback.

" Rick Ross credentials as a witness and criminal record were questioned in the case State of Arizona V. James Arthur Ray. The Court ruled that Rick Ross could testify, but the prosecution in the end didn't call him as a witness (undoubtedly because he would not have been credible given what the defense was prepared to put in front of the jury about Ross lack of education and criminal background)."

My thoughts on JAR is that he preaches "The Law of Attraction" on tv, so he preaches woo medicine, is a self-proclaimed guru, into new age woo, and also scams people out of money. When watching and reading up on the trial I do not believe JAR intent was to murder anybody but people did die on his watch. JAR seemed a bit delusional as well with some of the practices he did in the sweat lodge such as claims that he allowed members to defecate within the sweat lodge etc... He got two years in prison for negligent homicide for the 3 individuals who died of heat stroke, and is said to be out of prison this coming April 2013, or October 2013. I wonder how law of attraction is working out for him in prison lol...

The sweat lodge at which members of the JAR seminar were attending is basically a big tarp tent that contained around 60 people and that had heated rocks in the middle to heat the tent up. Talking with my friends who do this stuff, these sweat lodges are suppose to be like American Indian woo sweat lodges where apparently individuals will see their spirit animal. The problem with JAR's sweat lodge is that he and the members are just doing something really extreme on the last day in a 5 day seminar which is where they stay in the sweat lodge for long periods of time to where the body cannot naturally adapt to such extreme temperatures to the extent that 3 people died. Ray made the members sign a waver which states that this seminar is intense and JAR is not negligible for things that happen within the seminar; In my opinion I do believe Ray is still responsible for individuals within the JAR seminar well being and this particular incident could have been prevented and lives could have been saved.

As this court case was live on tv, any involvement with Rick Ross to this case was purely to be a gimmick expert. As James has been on Oprah and The Today Show pitching his stuff on there so he's gotten some media attention that Rick Ross wants to attach that type of publicity and success to himself, like a leech.


Reference:

"The Secret" on Oprah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLMvtzJTKss&t=7m48s

The Secret FULL MOVIE Law Of Attraction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6pDdHxARkc&t=32m43s
A win for James Ray in court
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IR1DJlsUO8o

Arizona v. James Arthur Ray in 10 Minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMFMWd6dTQs

Wayback exclude Rick Ross testimony
http://archive.org/details/ResponseToMotionToExcludeTestimonyOfRickRoss-StateOfArizonV.James

Undue influence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_influence

The dangers of gurus & The Secret - 2 years prison James Ray 3 deaths - Patrick Wanis PhD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMyoFLdQQ0

Sweat Lodge Trial Defense Gets a Doctor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2FKUNCYVTg&list=PLFC6F4AFCCE52E78F

http://jamesray.com/

Negligent homicide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against people who, through criminal negligence, allow others to die.
Negligent homicide is a lesser included offense to first and second degree murder, in the sense that someone guilty of this offense can expect a more lenient sentence, often with imprisonment time comparable to manslaughter. U.S. states all define negligent homicide by statute. In some, the offense includes the killing of another while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Examples of such cases include the crash of Aeroperu Flight 603 near Lima, Peru. The accident was caused by a piece of duct tape that was accidentally left over the static ports (on the bottom side of the fuselage) after cleaning the aircraft, which led to the crash. Employee Eleuterio Chacaliaza left the tape on by accident[1] and was charged with negligent homicide.

James Arthur Ray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Arthur_Ray

jamesray.com main site
http://jamesray.com/docs/

Click to get back to topic starter

Click to get back to topic starter


Now onto my e-mail exchange with Rick Ross. I want to note that in the exchange with Rick Ross I did not send him the the last e-mail (down below) where I go into Steven Hassan/copyright information/question his academic integrity/; as I would like to have a discussion about this on SP site before I send off that last message to Rick.

A brief abstract of the e-mail exchange is that Rick says I'm a troll (he is correct i am a academic troll), claims I was argumentative on RR.com (disagreed with him), and had lifted/copyrighted material on the TCOG thread of Sp off of RR.com site TCOG thread (he never came out right and said it but he did say I had copyright of something on his site). I told Rick I didn't want to be unbanned and I attempted to work with him as I would of ripped down the copyrighted material down SP site if it was the TCOG material he was talking about.

I would also like to say to check out the reference list at the end of the e-mail. AT that check out the stuff Rick Ross says on his site about Steve Hassan (use to work with Rick Ross, has credentials) as on a academic level Rick Ross actively deters individuals from reading his material. I will hit up more on the feud between Rick Ross and Steve Hassan in the next post.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


E-mail exchange with Rick Ross.

Requesting to know why I was banished off of RR.com




2012_CT wrote:
> > > Hi there it seems I was banned from Rick Ross site. I was
> wondering why
> > > I was banned as I am currently trying to post in the TZM thread in
> > > response to another.
> > >
> > > "The (user)name "2012_CT" has been banned from use. Please use a
> > > different name or contact the forum administrators."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Rick Ross wrote:
> >
> > You were "trolling".
> >
> > Rick Ross
> > www.rickross.com <http://www.rickross.com/&gt;

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


2012_CT wrote:
> > Ok, where was I trolling?


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Rick Ross wrote:
>
> 1. You were just engaging in arguments.
>
> 2. You have lifted material protected by copyright without permission to
> place on another Web site.
>
> Rick Ross
> www.rickross.com <http://www.rickross.com/&gt;


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


2012_CT wrote:
> I apologize if it may seem like was engaging in arguments, however I
> must disagree with you no that Rick Ross. However I do believe I may
> have irritated you're regular members of the site as well as
> yourself inadvertently. I understand that I am critical of you're work
> but that is certainly no grounds for banishment in my opinion (though it
> is you're site and you will do what you do.). However
> after reviewing you're site more and reviewing topics on trolling I had
> a hunch you have a itchy trigger finger when it comes to labeling at
> which I believe for the betterment of you're regular members the
> banishment of me is justified so you can maintain the
> more complacent/regular member base. I do not believe the Rick Ross site
> is for me and will not be requesting to be unbanned because frankly I
> don't fit in, but thank you for allowing me to have the time to present
> some information as well as getting back to me on the issue.
>
> Second issue about copyright. I'm assuming the material I presented on
> the site is perfectly ok or it would be deleted. However I am to assume
> you are talking about the information within the TCOG thread. If that is
> true are you requesting the information I posted on the Skeptic Project
> site pertaining to that thread be deleted? Is so is there any part
> within the thread I can keep in there for example the reviews of the
> material? I was completely unaware that the material that the
> information was under any form of copyright as for something to be
> copywrite on a web forum is has to be on a per post bases it would need
> to have a creative commons symbol or something indicating some form of
> license agreement. Many sites actually copyright on a per post bases.
>
> Again I'm sorry for everything and being unable to work things out with
> you, however I would be able to clear things up with the copyright issue
> on my end. If the copyright issue is something you could clear up on
> you're end then I give you a go ahead to do it however if the copyright
> is on mine end of things I will be more than willing to comply.
>
> - 2012_CT
> http://skepticproject.com/


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Rick Ross wrote:

I am not interested in an ongoing exchange with you.

There is nothing further to discuss.

You are banned from the message board.

Rick Ross
www.rickross.com

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2012_CT wrote:

I appreciate your fast reply. However I would like to say a few things on my last reply and maybe point out some problems I see. First this exchange will be posted up on the skeptic project site as well as James Randi site, not to shame but to show the type of exchange we had. Not everybody is going to praise your work and what you do, just because I do not praise your work like everybody else, does not mean it does not have any validity to it or that I do not see any validity to it. I think a lot of your work is interesting as you have a lot of experience in the cult area.

The problems I see with your work is purely on a academic level. First problem I have is that the topic of "cult" is a hard word to define let alone attempting to label a entire group with. Normally I would accept experience as well as credentials in these matter but this really does fall under the medical realm and I suppose when it falls into these categories I have to defer to individuals with credentials in the medical field. At which you lack the credentials.

I've read up on individuals such as Steve Hassan who does great academic work in the study of cults and has the credential to back up his findings, as his educational background is M.Ed., Counselling Psychology, Cambridge College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985, Licensed Mental Health Counselor (LMHC) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1992, Certified as a Nationally Certified Counselor (NCC) by the National Board for Certified Counselors, 2003. I believe you think of Steve Hassan as a troll, but I think he's a legitimate critic of your experience in dealing with cults and as well as a critic of your work/credentials (lack there of). Again, no reason to get upset over legitimate critics, that to the extent you put them up on your RR.com/flame site.

I have to say in my opinion you are a bit unprofessional not just on a academic level but how you handled this situation. I suggest in the near future if you have a problem with a individual it would be good to contact them through more personal means such as a personal message on the site or through e-mail. I would of gladly of listened and followed the rules/terms if I was contacted. I do not believe I was argumentative on your site, as well as I do not believe I have copyright infringed/stole work off your site as well or you would of showed me exactly where I did this and I would of gladly of taken the material down; Although you do not have a license to claim such infringement. I disagree that I lifted any material on the TCOG thread on the skeptic site, as I linked back to your site numerous times on a page to page bases, I never claimed I wrote those posts, wrote your academic journal, nor lifted Liftons evaluation methods, and claimed them for my own.

I want to point out that you have taken information off other sites and in short, did exactly same thing I did in the Trumpets Call of God thread on the skeptic project site. I may also want to point out on your site rules themselves the material post on the forums by other authors is not owned nor supported by Rick Ross on the site forums but owned by the author themselves (again, no talk about a license).

If you want to claim copyright over material said on a website by other poster the first step is to get a license such as a creative common license that fits your needs. Second you'll need to revise all statements in the rules/disclaimer to reflect accurately as well as delete portions that would come in conflict with the license. Third not all material will be covered by the license for instance a picture one posts up on the Rick Ross site may have it's own license therefore if I post that exact picture on another site RR.com can't claim copyright over that picture, this goes for video, as well a educational material. Forth you will need to on a per post bases on authors aka forum posters of the Rick Ross site to include a license agreement CC license symbol indicating that the statements made the RR.com site is copyrighted by the Rick Ross organization. Fifth (rehashing step two) if you do the forth step you'll need to revise statements on the rules/disclaimer to now reflect that all content posted on the site is in ownership of the site and not the author.

I'd also like to say that licenses are only good if they can be enforced. What I mean is it's pointless to get a license unless one has lawyers and is making money off of the licensed material. I don't believe you're making money off people posting on your site so what would be the rational to put a license on such material? I believe you just have a problem with me reposting some of the material on another site as well as me being a critic towards your work. If you truly want content to not be quoted then make your site private, or get a license to cover this area.

I would say in my opinion if I were to contact individuals who posted on the TCOG thread that most (excluding yourself) would not mind that I reposted some of the information on the site in a more easier to read format (as you do the very same thing). Next time you make up such accusation you might want to contact legal expert/s or someone with more experience with law than yourself.

I would not recommend individuals to go to your site to ask for cult advice as Steve Hassin would also agree with me on that notion. I'd say your work is based strongly on confirmation bias than on the facts. From the works you wrote (including academic works) that I have read on your site by you, it reminds me of Pseudoscience/Pseudomedicine/Homeopathy. However I would say your website has a lot of good information based on information from other experts about cults and therefore may recommend for someone to go for the content mainly, rather than communicating with the maker/cult expert of the site.

I am a troll, actually I am what is called a academic troll as I use logic and reason towards fringe none rational thinking. In my opinion I would say what you are doing is a very dangerous on a academic level as you portray yourself as a individual who is a expert on cults (with a lack of credentials). Normally I'd buy into experience but that simply isn't enough when it comes to define a group the label as a "cult" let alone labeling something a internet cult, I'd rather go with a person who has the credentials. I've come across Pseudointellectual and you definitely fit that category. People unknowingly may buy into your Pseudointellect however there are people (skeptics) that use logic and reason that can usually see through such things.

Kudos to Corboy on the TZM Cult topic on RR.com site.

- 2012 CT



References:

About The Licenses
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Steven Hassan gives opinions on Rick Ross and how waco was handled.
http://tinyurl.com/7dyyn6b

Steve Hassan Harvard Lecture 1-9 "WACO: The Government's Failure to Understand Destructive
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNiTeIVN34Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXrvOfWx7Gw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB6VHp4QhzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P1hUl2Tucg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqY87e5eiFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVoaZxdM6N0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viFs7Ce4UlU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGBis78BMhU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE94AA497B0

Steven Hassan about his thoughts on Rick Ross
http://tinyurl.com/6v575jl

Rick Ross on Wako
http://www.culteducation.com/groups/waco.html

WACO- A New Revelation - _2011. MOVIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaMy_MVSkMg

Steve Hassan website
http://www.freedomofmind.com/

Rick Ross Flame site
" Steve Hassan--Waco, Steve Hassan, cult expert and author, offers his criticism of my work related to Waco. Ironically, both Steve Hassan and myself are listed together on Rev. Moon's Unification Church page Faith Breakers, Dream Killers and Religious Bigots..." (i.e., Steve Hassan is the ..."Dream Killer" and I am the "Faith Breaker.") He concludes, "I think personally that the FBI made a major error to rely, or even to talk to [Rick Ross]. Because he was never in a cult himself. And in my experience, my ability, because of my first-hand experience...[gives me]...an awareness of what to say and how to say it...."Steve Hassan then laments,"I made numerous efforts to try to correct the situation...I approached my congressman...[who] wrote numerous letters and made many phone calls...encouraging them to get in touch with me. They did not. I faxed a letter to... President Clinton, a letter was faxed...directly to Janet Reno...[copies] of my book [were given] to Webster Hubble [and]...FBI negotiators in Waco...But I've never been called. I've never been contacted in fact, even though there was supposed to be a follow-up investigation..." Note: This award winning link has gone dead and the author's work is no longer available through a known Internet address. "
" "Response to Rick Ross's personal attack on me," by Steven Hassan
This somewhat heated response popped up on Steve Hassan's "Freedom of Mind" website after the Ross Institute (RI) posted a disclaimer regarding the cult specialist's fees. Complaints were received from families about the rates Mr. Hassan charged for services, which reportedly were $500.00 per hour and/or $5,000 per day. Some families mortgaged homes to pay him. Mr. Hassan refused to specifically respond to the substance of the complaints. That is, until a disclaimer went up that stated RI did not endorse or recommend Steven Hassan due to complaints received. After that was done for the first time Mr. Hassan publicly posted his fee schedule, which was reduced to $250.00 per hour and/or $2,500.00 per day. Once Steve Hassan reduced his fees and made this public, the RI disclaimer was taken down. Nevertheless Mr. Hassan appears to be miffed, and seems to think responding to complaints received about him is somehow a "personal attack."
Note: Since these comments were posted Steve Hassan has removed his formerly publically posted fee schedule. His website now adivises, "Please call my assistant Debra [...] during office hours with any questions about fees." "http://www.culteducation.com/flamingwebsites.html

Academic troll information
http://afterallitcouldbeworse.blogspot.com/2011/04/interview-john-emerson-ex-doctor-ex.html
http://moreorlessbunk.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/how-to-respond-to-an-academic-troll/

Academic troll example.
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/5325/justintempler-debunk-on-douglas-mallettes-omega-volksgarden/#reply-d48bee59



Rick Ross Responds to his Critics
http://www.culteducation.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html

website reviews
http://www.culteducation.com/reviews.html


Steve Hassan? (Rick Ross thoughts on Steven Hassan academically)
http://web.archive.org/web/20130731234203/http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?7,111783

Rick Ross talks about Steve Hassan
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,103844,page=86

Rick Ross says Steve Hassan is to expensive.
http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?4,76604

Someone named E.P. Grondine posted about reading Steve Hassan book on TZM thread at which Rick Ross posts right afterward. (Two pages over Rick Ross puts down his verdict on TZM).
http://forum.culteducation.com/read.php?12,97823,98495

Rick Ross says Steve Hassan has complaints against him.
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?12,103844,108560

My thoughts on TZM being a internet cult. I changed my opinion in this very topic to that there needs to be more academic evidence to support the thought of groups on the internet can be labeled as a cult. (the topic as a whole is a good read).
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/forum/4542/is-tzm-a-cult-lets-see/#post-43979

Click to get back to topic starter

Click to get back to topic starter

Hey Rick Ross just updated the SP RR.com flame site award!

I saw, screened grabbed, and dated where Rick Ross updated SP flame site award on three separate occasions. This would suggest he is actively watching the SP site. Why are all cranks so obsessed with any form of criticism towards their work? I keep seeing this within the cranks I run across.

I'm going to respond to the update parts of Rick Ross flame list, as well as rehash other parts, screen grab by screen grab.


Original 3/27/2013


To 3/28/2013


First Rick Ross took out this part in what I'm guessing is his poorly done copy/paste jurb.

"This rambling thread was written by "2012CT", someone that was banned for "trolling" at the Ross Institute message board. This anonymous author admits "I am a troll", but insists that somehow he is an "academic troll", whatever that is. Since 2012CT is an anonymous troll no one can confirm his claims. He likes to copy and paste from other sources in what seems like a bad case of "sour grapes". 2012CT quotes or cites Steve Hassan, another "Flaming Web site" award winner. This rant only rates two flames, due to its boring repetition and lack of originality."

Protip: Don't highlight previous text before you copy pasta more text to it, also ctrl C, to copy and ctrl v to paste ;).

"Update: After receiving his Flaming Website award ever anonymous 2012CT decided to continue his cut and paste effort. "

Seriously your using the term "cut and paste"? It's copy and paste genius. At that, " Flaming Website award ever anonymous" makes no sense, omit the word "ever" or add more to this.

"Among his latest lifted additions is a court motion filed by lawyers representing the notorious self-help guru James Arthur Ray, who was convicted of negligent homicide concerning three deaths."

Really now Rick, are you not the pot calling the kettle black. Self-proclaimed cult expert that abducts people and deprograms them. At that Rick Ross was involved in the Waco incident which resulted in 74 men, women and children died at Branch Dividian Compound in Waco, TX.

"Ray's lawyers sought to have me disqualified as an expert at his trial, but I was qualified and accepted as an expert by the judge in the Ray case despite that effort in February 2011. Anonymous 2012CT still rates only two flames despite calling attention to my official recognition as an expert witness in court.""

This is a red herring logical fallacy as Rick Ross is inventing a argument that suggest that I said that Rick Ross testimony in James Arthur Rays case was excluded at which I never did. However I quoted information within the case pertaining to question Rick Ross academic integrity. Nice try Rick in trying to change the topic.

Lets just keep in mind on the James Arthur Ray case that Rick Ross was accepted to give testimony but to my understanding the prosecution never allowed Rick to give his testimony in this case as the defense would of tried to reduce Rick Ross credibility and it would of ultimately hurt the prosecution case overall.

"Note: 2012CT did correctly call attention to the incorrect date of an archived Associated Press report about my expert status in the Ray case."

Rick you are not to good at copying and pasting. I can image there being a lot of other major types of errors on this RR.com site as well. You'll have to take this up with RR.com board of directors LOL! Why don't you archive the original source and do a frame embed of the source on the site page itself? This copy and pasting job you're doing isn't working out, if you can't get a simple date right.

"I have been qualified and accepted as an expert witness in court cases in ten states, including United States Federal Court (http://www.culteducation.com/reference/expert_witness/expert_witness7.html) through what is called a "Daubert hearing," which is a court proceeding specifically used to challenge experts."

Naw man for real? OMG a judge accepted your testimony therefore you are an expert OMG! Amazing wow Rick you are a expert cause a judge accepted your testimony...

This is a faulty appeal to authority logical fallacy. Just because a Judge accepts that you can give your testimony in trial to a jury of your peers does not make you a expert or have credibility on cults. The judge more than likely has no background or credentials when it comes to cults, at that Rick you have no credentials in the medical field. Rick is basically attempting to self-proclaim that he is an expert because a judge who does not have special knowledge in the area being discussed allows Rick to give testimony in a court case to a jury of his peers.

Giving or being accepted to give testimony within a court to a jury of your peers does not add to your academic credentials. A judge more then likely will not have credentials within a particular field at which he or she is examining the motion to exclude testimony or anything else in a Daubert hearing, yet merely accepts that a individual has specialized knowledge beyond what the average individual/jury of your peers would know on a particular topic to give testimony on.

So for instance a guy with no credentials and lets say picks up poop for a living could potentially give testimony on another case to a jury of his or her peers with any specialized knowledge on picking up poop as long as that other case had something that involved poop in it. Like I said anybody can give testimony within a court, but just because someone gives testimony in a court case that does not give them more validity, credibility, or be a "expert" within that field it merely means that you know more than the average Joe/jury of your peers when it comes to a particular topic to explain to a jury.





To 3/29/2013 update


Rick adds back a paragraph that he had previously deleted from before for at which I would imagine is a copy/paste attempt gone awry. Here is the deleted paragraph he added back in.

"This rambling thread was written by "2012CT", someone that was banned for "trolling" at the Ross Institute message board. This anonymous author admits "I am a troll", but insists that somehow he is an "academic troll", whatever that is. Since 2012CT is an anonymous troll no one can confirm his claims. He likes to copy and paste from other sources in what seems like a bad case of "sour grapes". 2012CT quotes or cites Steve Hassan, another "Flaming Web site" award winner. This rant only rates two flames, due to its boring repetition and lack of originality.

To 4/1/2013 update


The new sentence Rick added to the delete paragraph portion is "My response to critics (http://www.culteducation.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html ) (1998) has been posted publicly along with my CV (http://www.culteducation.com/cv.html ) since the 1990s."

I have read Rick Ross response to critics page before, Ricks response to critics is mostly a deflective diatribe of responses consisting in mostly logical fallacies to self-validate himself then anything else. Your not proving your critics wrong in the "Credentials and Education" section of the page. Just because you acknowledge you do not have any credentials within this very controversial field does not mean people should give you a pass. Just because you give lectures at universities, that does not make you a expert on cults, this is again a faulty appeal to authority logical fallacy. However I may give a response to your "response to critics" page but overall with some exception your mostly using logical fallacies, at which most of it seems to be attacking the person rather than the actually content the person produces. It's not very professionally done from a professionally standpoint, academic standpoint, and technical standpoint.

I've also read your Curriculum vitae before and that proves nothing on your credentials again your resume is equal to that of a lot of other cranks I've seen in the medical woo category. My response on Rick Ross being allowed by a judge to give testimony within a court case has been said previously within this thread. The best part of this resume which should have been the part that added to your credibility actually made you more of a crank. The majority of your academic publications at which none of your work has been peer-reviewed are published by some unknown institute in china. Get it peer-reviewed and posted within a credible institution. That was just LULZ funny when I read where you got your work published at.

About the claimed academic papers written by Rick Ross well I did read a few, the papers mostly contained anecdotal types of evidence about particular cult/s as well as his writing style tends to be slanted to the extent of becoming obvious forms of confirmation bias. It was an ok read but with no meaningful content really. Rick if you went and graduated from college (which you did not) you would understand why my criticism on RR.com towards your "academic work" was not to be mean but to help. You are not doing anything to further the study of cults when you have no clue on how to write a proper academic paper and at that write a diatribe of statements towards your critics.


Rick then changes a part in this sentence, which the sentence is ""Daubert hearing," which is a court proceeding specifically used to challenge and confirm experts." . The part he changed is near the end where it originally said to "challenge experts" he changes it to "challenge and confirm experts". I do not have a problem with that update on RR.com, however Daubert hearing basically allows the judge to be the gatekeeper when it comes to excluding or including testimony from a individual who is more knowledgeable than the average person and or jury of his or her peers on a particular subject.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

"Note: 2012CT did correctly call attention to the incorrect date of an archived Associated Press report about my expert status in the Ray case."

I helped point out and correct Rick Ross copy and paste mistake here made where the articles date was suppose to be 2011 not 2001. Seriously how hard is it to copy and paste off another site? I can imagine how many other mistakes are made on RR.com. Thanks for giving me credit.



From 2001 date is a mistake.


To update 3/28/2013, correction of article date from 2001 to 2011 date in this.



Conclusion:
Rick Ross is trying to self-validate himself using logical fallacy and at that on a professional level he is attacking the person rather than the argument. I never denied that Rick Ross has made some efforts in the fight to stop cults but his approach on a professional level be it from deprogramming, to responding to critics at which he responds with logical fallacies, just undermines what little work he has contributed to the study of cults. Rick Ross has made it abundantly clear that he cannot accept any form of criticism.

Do not tell me or others that just because a judge allows you to give testimony in a case, that adds some sort of clot in making you a cult expert. A judge does not have specialized knowledge within that particular field, therefore suggesting a judge makes you a cult expert because they allow your testimony in a case is simply a a logical fallacy. When it comes to the study of cults trying to circumvent your way around not having credentials by self-validating yourself through giving testimony in court, and or talking at universities does not give you those hard earned credentials and the knowledge that comes with it, or makes you more credible in such a controversial field. Normally I could accept a person with no credentials within engineering, or programming, however the field you self-proclaimed to be in is the medical health field and I always defer to people with credentials when it comes to that.

Rick Ross is a self-taught quack expert in cults with no credentials in the medical field, his main objective is to be gimmicky to the point of being a overly dramatic sensationalist so he can promote himself on television. I highly recommend again Rick seriously gives some thought in discontinuing his self-taught quackery, as the real professionals with real hard earned credentials and medical experience are better suited for this type of work.


References:



How to Determine If A Controversial Statement Is Scientifically True
http://lifehacker.com/5919830/how-to-determine-if-a-controversial-statement-is-scientifically-true

You Should Downvote Contrarian Anecdotes
http://thobbs.github.com/blog/2012/06/17/you-should-downvote-anecdotes/

What is a Daubert Hearing?
http://www.helium.com/items/1807122-daubert-hearing-on-expert-and-scientific-evidence

Quackery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery

Mental Help: Procedures to Avoid
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mentserv.html

Brainwashing and Deprogramming
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4278

Logical Fallacy song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_LODZ-cDv0

Self-Validating
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-validating

Bigfoot DNA Discovered? Not So Fast
http://www.livescience.com/27140-bigfoot-dna-study-questioned.html




Click to get back to topic starter

Click to get back to topic starter

I corrected Rick Ross word usage on a previous thread within this topic. Rick has taken my advice and did a minor update with the correction I suggested (I bet Muertos is doing back-flips over this one). It would again also suggest Rick Ross is actively reading SP.com LOL...

My original statement on making the correction

"Seriously your using the term "cut and paste"? It's copy and paste genius. At that, " Flaming Website award ever anonymous" makes no sense, omit the word "ever" or add more to this."

Rick changed a few words in a sentence which is "cut and paste" to "copy and paste" and added "seemingly forever" in the place of "ever". The new updated sentence by Rick now seems a bit odd and too wordy. Rick I would recommend you omit the words "seemingly forever" as it doesn't make any sense and the sentence would flow much better if you did. If recommended omission took place it would read like this "After receiving his Flaming Website award, anonymous "2012CT" decided to continue his copy and paste effort.".

Rick you should add on your flaming website award note on SP, that in the second paragraph first sentence I helped you correct words within that sentence.

Was 4/1/2013
"After receiving his Flaming Website award ever anonymous 2012CT decided to continue his cut and paste effort."

Now 4/7/2013 after my word usage recommendation
"After receiving his Flaming Website award seemingly forever anonymous "2012CT" decided to continue his copy and paste effort."

If my recommended omission to Rick took place it would read like this. 4/7/2013
"After receiving his Flaming Website award, anonymous "2012CT" decided to continue his copy and paste effort.".


From 4/1/2013 update


To 4/7/2013



Click to get back to topic starter

Click to get back to topic starter





Rick Ross recently. put his domain name for sale. Back in May 13 2013 it was reported the rapper Rick Ross wanted to buy Rick Ross's domain name for $10,000 at which Rick Ross is reported saying,

""One time -- but this was years ago -- I got a message from one his people saying they wanted to buy rickross.com," he said. "But their offer was, like, $10,000. And I thought, 'That's ridiculously low.' So I dismissed it. ""

It's kind of funny Rick would say that because this is the same guy who complains that Steve Hassan charges to much for his services as Rick has said in his disclaimer

"RI has received serious complaints about Steve Hassan concerning his fees. Steve Hassan does not publicly disclose his fee schedule, but according to complaints he has charged fees varying from $250.00 per hour or $2,500.00 per day to $500.00 per hour or $5,000.00 per day. This does not include Steve Hassan's expenses, which according to complaints can be quite substantial."

Are you not a hypocrite Rick Ross?

On June 7. 2013 Rick Ross announced on cultnews.com that he would be putting rickross.com domain name up for sale. on The RR.com Rick Ross posted on July 21, 2013 that RR.com was for sale and that they will be switching to culteducation.com is sold.

Again I find the irony how Rick is complaining about Steve Hassan and his pricing yet Rick Ross is willing to sell his well known domain name to the higher bidder for profit as well. The pot calling the kettle black...


References:


Rick Ross Feud: The Battle Over Who Will Own Rickross.com posted on May 13 2013
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2013/05/rick_ross_rickrosscom_url.php

Domain name rickross.com for sale post on June 7. 2013
http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2464#respond

The sale of domain name rickross.com on July 21, 2013
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?14,122192


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Text archive of websites referenced


Rick Ross Feud: The Battle Over Who Will Own Rickross.com posted on May 13 2013
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2013/05/rick_ross_rickrosscom_url.php

Rick Ross Feud: The Battle Over Who Will Own Rickross.com
By Terrence McCoy Mon., May 13 2013 at 8:22 AM 1 Comment
Categories: News




rick_ross.jpg
Fame, money, women -- but no URL.
Men speaking in strange tongues call Rick Ross late in the night and ask him questions involving matters he has no knowledge of.
In English more broken than Tim Tebow's NFL chances, they ply him for info on his next ill beat. They croon how much they love his jam.

Then, the white, 60-year-old cult expert living in New Jersey hangs up the phone, confused, and thinks of all of the money he could bank.

"Over the last month, we've discussed whether or not to auction our domain," says Rick Ross, who runs the cultic studies Rick A. Ross Institute, and has a hegemonic grip on the Rick Ross URLs: rickross.com, rickross.net, and rickross.org.

"At one time, believe it or not, I was the most famous Rick Ross."

A little something's changed.

More than a decade after Rick Ross christened rickross.com in 1996, our own local celebrity, rapper Rick Ross, went supernova. Now, the Bawse owns the rap world -- even if he's not as hard as he says, and his would-be assassins have worse aim than bad guys in a Rambo flick. (Last January some entirely feckless hit-men unloaded 17 bullets at the Bawse in Fort Lauderdale and, incredibly, missed his Rolls-Royce with every shot.)

But the Bawse has a problem: the biggest rapper in America doesn't even have his own signature website. He instead must use rickrossdeeperthanrap.com while the other Rick Ross deploys the suddenly desirable rickross.com. And that Rick Ross isn't giving the URL up.

Unless the price is right, or course.

"One time -- but this was years ago -- I got a message from one his people saying they wanted to buy rickross.com," he said. "But their offer was, like, $10,000. And I thought, 'That's ridiculously low.' So I dismissed it. "

But so far, no better offer has arrived. And in the time since, the cult expert has collected thousands of rapper Rick Ross' fans who have unwittingly clacked rickross.com into their browser and came upon a site strewn with tens of thousands of archived materials related to strange churches across the nation.

"At least a 1,000 per day," Rick Ross estimates their number.

The site also lists Rick Ross' e-mail, the inbox of which explodes with fan e-mail -- not for him, of course. And next to his e-mail, and perhaps imprudently, is Rick Ross' cell phone.
So at night the calls come.

"I love your music!" the callers yell.

"And I tell them, 'I'm not the right Rick Ross.' I do cults."

Follow Terrence McCoy on Twitter

Domain name rickross.com for sale post on June 7. 2013
http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2464#respond

06.07.13Domain name rickross.com for sale
Posted in Miscellaneous at 9:02 pm by Rick Ross
The domain name rickross.com is now for sale at the GoDaddy Auction Domain Name Aftermarket Web site.

de6f437ee1dda7161652cdaefd82d04d.jpgRickross.com was originally purchased in 1996 and is owned by well-known cult expert and intervention specialist Rick Ross (photo above right). The Web site known as Rick Ross.com was launched in 1996 and is a primary resource on the World Wide Web for information about destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. In 2001 the site officially became known as the Rick A. Ross Institute for Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements (RI) and was granted nonprofit, tax-exempt 501 (c) (3) charitable status by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States.

RI is devoted to public education and is an institutional member of the New Jersey Library Association.

Rickross.com today is the gateway to a vast archive that has been under continuous construction for 17 years. This ever expanding online library includes thousands of individual documents, articles, reports and studies divided into hundreds of subsections by topic such as Scientology, Landmark Education and "brainwashing."

A wealth of information is contained within the public message board attached to the RI Web site, which has more than 100,000 entries. The posts at this open forum board include comments from former cult members, affected families and others concerned.

Alexa, the Web information company, currently ranks the RI Web site 73,703 globally and 24,316 in the United States on World Wide Web based upon its traffic. More than 3,000 Web sites link to RI according to Alexa.

After some consideration RI has decided that the domain name entry point of the Web site will be changed. Due to this decision rickross.com is now for sale. Also included and conveyed to the purchaser of rickross.com will be four additional domains; rickross.net, rickross.org, rick-ross.net and rick-ross.org.

Note: The sale of the domain name rickross.com is for the domain name only and does not include any portion or part of the Web site archives. Everything within the Web site archives will remain intact and nothing will change. This includes the main archives and message board contents. The buyer of the domain name rickross.com will only purchase and have access to the domain name and nothing else. What is now known as rickross.com will become culteducation.com. This will be a domain name change and nothing more. This will of course involve a change in all relevant link addresses within the archives and message board and this will temporarily affect search results as the various search engines note the change in link addresses.Eventually all the contents of the Web site archives and message board entries will once again become evident and appear within searches with the new domain name prefix.

The sale of domain name rickross.com on July 21, 2013
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?14,122192

To whom it may concern:

See [www.cultnews.com]

The sale of the domain name rickross.com is for the domain name only and does not include any portion or part of the Web site archives. Everything within the Web site archives will remain intact and nothing will change. This includes the main archives and message board contents. They buyer of the domain name rickross.com will only purchase and have access to the domain name and nothing else. What is now known as rickross.com will become culteducation.com. This will be a domain name change and nothing more. This will of course involve a change in all relevant link addresses within the archives and message board and this will temporarily affect search results as the various search engines note the change in link addresses. Eventually all the contents of the Web site archives and message board entries will once again become evident and appear within searches with the new domain name prefix.

Rick Ross



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/21/2013 10:10AM by rrmoderator.

Click to get back to topic starter