Round One: Bart Dixslurper, Esq. Legal Correspondence with Science Monkeying-Nutford (the Third)and his solicitors

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION

4 Feb 2016
From: Bart Dixslurper, Esq
To: OSA PR
Re: COB PR Image Problems

The PR survey OSA asked my firm to conduct is completed. When surveyed, wogs who have never heard of COB RTC David Miscavige were shown this picture:

The survey was conclusive: Surveyed wogs felt the photo sent a mixed message: Is the glib television pitchman in the tuxedo selling encyclopedias or is he recruiting for the Navy?

The challenge of positioning COB RTC David Miscavige as a global ecclesiastical leader to new audiences is daunting — particularly if new audiences search for Mr. Miscavige online.

An investigation of R6 implant religions shows that traditional global ecclesiastical leaders do not wear tuxedos. Our survey showed that the wearing of a tuxedo is associated with funeral directors, florists, television pitchmen, beauty pageant hosts, waiters, and Las Vegas lounge singers.

Our survey indicates that OSA needs to dress COB in more suitably ecclesiastical vestments for 2016:

4th February 2016
From: Hartley Kyk-Yerarse (Senior Partner) Weir, Gunner-Wynn and Kyk-Yerarse
To: Bart Dixslurper, Esq
Re: PR Survey

Dear Mr. Dixslurper,

It is with great dismay that I find your firm merely undertakes Public Relations surveys. Since I have been engaged by my client, you have been fraudulently giving the impression of being a fully qualified lawyer, and now, less than twenty-four hours later it is found that your organisation merely collects and collates surveys. You can imagine the dim view I and my partners take of such unethical behaviour.

Could you pass all information pertaining to my client (and the missive of this morning) to someone competently qualified to deal with these sorts of formal, legal enquiries. I expect prompt confirmation that these simple tasks have been executed.

Yours sincerely,

p.p. U. R. Ina Pickles

Hartley Kyk-Yerarse

S. O. Weir
T. O. T. Ally Gunner-Wynn &
Hartley Kyk-Yerarse
Senior Partners
Weir, Gunner-Wynn and Kyk-Yerarse Solicitors LLC (Estd. 1568) 35 London, Englandshire.

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION

4th February 2016
From: Bart Dixslurper, Esq
To: Hartley Kyk-Yerarse (Senior Partner) Weir, Gunner-Wynn and Kyk-Yerarse
Re: Follow Up to Your Rude and Insulting Letter

Dear Pickles,

Our firm is a real law firm. I earned my law degree at the prestigious Sequoia Law University. From time to time our client the Church of Scientology requests that we undertake surveillance, err, strike that. From time to time our client requests that we undertake surveys to determine wog attitudes.

There is no law preventing a law firm from conducting surveys for its clients.

On another matter, our firm has 30 new and unused sets of the Scientology Basics sitting in our offices. May I interest you in a set for the bargain price of $9,000?

Sincerely,

Bart Dixslurper, Esq

4th February 2016
From: Hartley Kyk-Yerarse (Senior Partner) Weir, Gunner-Wynn and Kyk-Yerarse
To: Bart Dixslurper, Esq
Re: Follow up to initial contact

Dear Mr. Dixslurper,

That being the case, we would respectfully request some sort of response to our initial letter of this morning. Should you have lost it amongst the surveillance files surveys for your clients, we enclose a copy herewith:

4th February 2016
From: Hartley Kyk-Yerarse (Senior Partner) Weir, Gunner-Wynn and Kyk-Yerarse
To: Bart Dixslurper, Esq
Re: Cease and Desist (pertaining to my Client, Science Monkeying-Nutford {the Third})

Dear Mr. Dixslurper,

I find myself in the disappointing position this morning of being informed by my client, again, of your vexatious Cease and Desist communications to this community (and by extension, my client)–coming so soon after our previous correspondence (enc: https://otviiisgrrr8.wordpress… ), where it was expressly stated by my client that any further communication should solely be via the offices of my good self. It was after this perceived resolution that my client felt further unfounded, nay, totally unwarranted attempts to restrict the expression of free speech would cease.

It is therefore, with heavy heart, that I must formally request that you Cease and Desist forthwith, and with immediate effect, in your endeavours to restrict Free Speech through the frivolous and vexatious misapplication of the Law. A complaint against you has been filed with your Bar Association. Furthermore, your client’s chairman (or is it your client? Or do you represent both? Some clarity would be appreciated) appears to be in immediate need of some sort of urgent palliative medical or psychiatric care, as alluded to in earlier correspondence, if he feels the need to further engage your services in this manner.

At this juncture, I am reminded of the wise words of my Great-great-great-grandfather, Comprehensively: “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but slanderous words are chargeable by the hour.” Advice I heed to this day, as should your client(s). Furthermore, my client has just phoned, and requested that I should reiterate on his behalf–if your client(s) choose to feel that my client has posted material of a libelous nature: Come over here and sue him then (a proposition I and my fellow senior partners relish–see above re. words).

It is particularly worrying that you write with such apparent gusto at people being hanged in public–such violence and depravity was done away with in great-great-great-grandad Compo’s time over here. You should be ashamed of yourself. Furthermore, the thought of turning something as vile as a hanging into some sort of perverse village fête, with a dose of aural torture to go with the already abhorrent spectacle (I know not of these ‘selfies’ of which you speak–I presume it is merely a further horror in this carnival of horrors that you envisage). Perhaps you also should be seeking, with alacrity, some sort of psychological therapeutic care.

To conclude:
My client (Science Monkeying-Nutford III alias $cnMonkeyNut$) flatly refuses to comply with any of the requests of your client(s), as outlined above–joking and degrading will continue apace (as a simian, he has never been ashamed of anything, and will therefore continue in that vein). There will be no cessation of the behaviour alleged to be lawless by your client(s)–therefore no confirmation will be forthcoming by the date specified.
FURTHERMORE: Any and all communications that reference my client, even indirectly (such as the above), from henceforth must be made SOLELY via my office–should my client feel you have made any further vexatious communications, we will institute proceedings of harassment against your client(s) in all relevant jurisdictions.

Should you decide to progress to legal proceedings, we look forward to seeing you in Court.

Yours sincerely,

p.p. U. R. Ina Pickles

Hartley Kyk-Yerarse

Given the grave nature of the matters alluded to in this epistle, urgent response is required.

Yours sincerely,

p.p. U. R. Ina Pickles

Hartley Kyk-Yerarse

S. O. Weir
T. O. T. Ally Gunner-Wynn &
Hartley Kyk-Yerarse
Senior Partners

Weir, Gunner-Wynn and Kyk-Yerarse Solicitors LLC (Estd. 1568) 35 London, Englandshire.

PS. Thank you, no–we have enough books containing far more useful information, for far, far less.

From: Bart Dixslurper, Esq
To: Hartley Kyk-Yerarse (Senior Partner) Weir, Gunner-Wynn and Kyk-Yerarse
Re: Follow Up to Your Rude and Insulting Letter #2

My Dearest Hartley Kyk-Yerarse,

You appear to be stuck in an electronic incident. May I suggest you destimulate from your electronic incident?

To address your points:

1. My client will not Cease and Desist from protected religious activities.

2. The public hanging of a large number of Suppressive Persons is, we argue, a protected religious activity in America. My client believes in, and solemnly practices, Scientology Religious Theater.

3. Scientology Religious Theater is a subspecies of American religious grotesquerie — a subject you British and your impeccable manners are wholly unable to understand because it does not comport with your notions of proper spectacle. Hence, you maliciously revile and castigate our proposed public hanging as an “already abhorrent spectacle” and a “carnival of horrors.” They are no such thing sir! Indeed, if you want a real carnival of horrors I suggest you watch the American presidential primaries to which we are currently being involuntarily subjected to here in the States. How many times must I see Donald Trump’s “Marcab hair” before I gouge my eyes out with forks a la Scientology artist Gottfried Helnwein’s album cover for the Scorpions?

4. As your client is a monkey he has no legal standing in the law courts of America. I do not know the laws in your land, but animals cannot file lawsuits here against religious leaders (or their lawyers). While your client may feel himself to be a wronged monkey, his lack of standing as a natural human person bars him from alleging that I am being vexatious in any way whatsoever. Were your client my responsibility, I would gladly sell him to Kirstie Alley to add to her menagerie and be done with him.

5. Due to a felony conviction, and this was a travesty of justice in which I was falsely accused of embezzling a staggering sum of money from a family trust, I had to turn in my passport and am not allowed to travel abroad. Hence I will not be able to fly to the UK to sue you or your client. I might add that the electronic ankle monitoring bracelet I must wear as a condition of my parole makes travel very uncomfortable.

As to my earlier question: Our firm has 30 new and unused sets of the Scientology Basics sitting in our offices. May I interest you in a set for the bargain price of $9,000? I will offer you a professional courtesy discount of 20% if you purchase one or more sets today.

Sincerely,

Bart Dixslurper, Esq

5th February 2016
From: Hartley Kyk-Yerarse (Senior Partner) Weir, Gunner-Wynn and Kyk-Yerarse
To: Bart Dixslurper, Esq
Re: Further exquisitely polite insults.

Dear Mr. Dixslurper,

I fail to understand to what you are referring when you mention an ‘electronic incident’. I don’t recall ever having had electronic incidents, and if I had, the IT johnny said I just had to turn it off and on again. I further fail to understand what you mean when you use the word ‘destimulate’, as I am unable to find that term in either the Full Oxford English Dictionary or in Merriam-Webster–please elucidate.

I shall enumerate my responses to your numbered list:

i) My Client would contend that the ‘religious’ activities alleged by your client actually are, in fact, illegal acts that include (but are not limited to): obtaining financial advantage through fraudulent representations to a Federal Department (to wit: the unlawful 1993 IRS Agreement); the use of the aforementioned illegally sourced funds to hire private investigators and crooked ex-public servants to undertake surveillance and harassment of ex-members and critics of your clients; your clients file multiple strategic lawsuits against public participation to quash opposition; your client runs scientifically dangerous rehab facilities that make multiple fraudulent claims of efficacy and pecunious claims of the Health Insurance industry; your clients make fraudulent use of the ‘R1–Non-Immigrant Religious Worker Visa’ Scheme; and the issuing of vexatious and entirely unenforceable cease and desist letters. If this constitutes religious behaviour in the United States currently, then God help us.

ii and iii) ‘Scientology Religious Theatre’ My thoughts on your self-described ‘religiously protected grotesquerie’ of public executions sounds like a 19th century tarring and feathering… but updated for the modern age into a hideous and gaudy travesty, with ‘ethnic snacks and musical entertainments’–and the possibility of having one’s photograph taken with a man with wandering hands, whose visage also looks more like a melon with a crudely drawn face tacked onto it (if the photographs attached with today’s ’blog post’ are to be believed). With respect to the Presidential Primaries, we were given to understand that a Canadian gentleman had triumphed, and the intolerance rhetoric champion of interesting coiffure was knocked into third place to lick his wounds… but I digress.

iv) Whilst my Client, Mr. S. Monkeying-Nutford the Third, may be of the simian persuasion, he is quite capable of making his requirements known in an understandable manner to those able to advocate on his behalf. I am such a person, having represented the Monkeying-Nutfords since the start of my junior partnership at this very firm. The Partnership has been managing the affairs, both legal and financial, of this family for many hundreds of years–since the original Monkeying saved Mad Captain Bewilderforce ‘Windy Nutter’ Nutford from a certain death by falling from high in the rigging of his frigate, while he was attempting a hornpipe on the fore royal yard. Thereafter, Monkeying was accorded the sobriquet of ‘Saviour Monkeying’ and on Captain Windy’s return to England, he made over a significant portion of his fortune (Captain Windy having been successful in prize money during the various colonial wars of the era), and the management thereof to my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, William (or Will, to close acquaintances). The Monkeying Inheritance was entailed in 1779. Regrettably, in 1847, Mad Captain Windy’s grandson, Nathaniel Unburden Temptation (they were very religious back then, so much so–it was probably the reason why issue, there was none!) died without a legitimate heir–thereby enabling a sub-clause in Captain Windy’s Will which entailed the remainder of the Nutford Fortune (and Nutford name and properties–including the prestigious Nutford Hall in the rolling Cotswolds), to the descendants of Saviour Monkeying, by now his great-great-grandson, Naughty Monkeying (being attentively cared for by the staff at The Hall, and with free range of the Hall and park), became Naughty Monkeying-Nutford, was accepted into polite society and became a valuable member of the idle rich. Our only disappointment was an inability to get the Nutford Baronetcy transferred… well, you have to lose sometimes, and that was ours… but I digress further. Suffice to say that I have successfully represented Mr. S. Monkeying-Nutford on many occasions, and he has never been convicted of public nudity or the flinging of excrement–so I consider my skills well honed to filing suit on behalf of my client and fully understanding his intentions.

v) No problem, we hear that a gentleman named Ray Jeffrey does sterling work on your side of the pond–we shall endeavour to engage his services. We’ll bring the lawsuit to you (because we’re nice like that… and we have a bottomless Trust Fund to empty for this very purpose). We hope this suits.

With regards to the books apparently filling your every available shelving space to no avail, let them remain there. My client has made me fully aware of the thorough lack of value, import or fact in your founder’s ‘psychological folk-art’.

Yours sincerely,

p.p. U. R. Ina Pickles

Hartley Kyk-Yerarse

S. O. Weir
T. O. T. Ally Gunner-Wynn &
Hartley Kyk-Yerarse
Senior Partners
Weir, Gunner-Wynn and Kyk-Yerarse Solicitors LLC (Estd. 1568) 35 London, Englandshire.