Cult News

Today the Montel Williams Show was supposedly devoted to children abused through the use of prescription psychiatric drugs such as Ritalin, specifically given to alleviate the symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorders (ADD).

The talk show host claimed, “We just want the truth.”

However, there was more to this program than met the eye.

The featured organization on the show was the “Citizens Commission on Human Rights” (CCHR), founded by Scientology in 1969, which is an anti-psychiatry “watchdog group.”

CCHR’s international president once described psychiatry as a “malignant disease” that “threatens society and ultimately mankind.”

Montel’s guest today, CCHR president Bruce Wiseman agreed publicly with that statement. And during the show also compared “your friendly neighborhood psychiatrist,” to drug lords in Columbia.

At no time did the talk show host explore the wider agenda of the CCHR and/or its antipathy for the entire mental health profession.

Instead, Montel chatted up Scientology celebrity Juliette Lewis who appeared with Wiseman.

At one point the actress excitedly urged her audience to make “drug manufacturers and psychiatrists…accountable.”

Then there were cameo clips by other Scientology notables, Anne Archer and Catherine Bell. These two actresses chimed in their support for the CCHR and its war against psychiatric drugs.

However, despite the heavy Scientology lineup, the “S” word (Scientology) was never even uttered.

There was likewise no balance whatsoever, despite the fact that many of the claims made by the CCHR have been labeled “preposterous” by experts.

Montel offered up instead “expert” Mary Ann Block, a CCHR board member and award winner.

Block was introduced as a “doctor,” but is neither a psychiatrist, psychologist or even an M.D. She is an osteopath.

Block claims that ADD is a “made-up, psychiatric label.”

Ironically, the Association of Osteopaths, which represents Block’s specialty, officially recognizes the disorder.

This was just another fact never mentioned by Montel.

The talk show host seemed somewhat caught up in the formatted furor about Ritalin; he plaintively compared the fate of children prescribed psychiatric medication to “crack babies.”

Montel then added furtively, “Someone’s making a lot of money of our children,” an apparent reference to Scientology’s nemesis the “drug companies.”

Sadly parents and children, who are not Scientologists, but appeared on the program today, seemed like props manipulated by Scientologists to promote their agenda.

This is not the first time Montel’s show has essentially been co-opted by Scientology and served much like an infomercial for the controversial organization, which has been called a “cult.”

Earlier this year Montel repeated a program with Scientologist Kelly Preston, wife of Scientologist John Travolta, that touted the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.

The Preston show, just like the recent one, didn’t mention Scientology and instead was supposedly about “environmental toxins” that hurt kids.

It seems that Montel has either gone from dumb to dumber, or is so desperate for celebrity appearances to boost his ratings, he will shill almost anything.

Has Montel become a Scientology stooge?

Scientology often attacks psychiatrists and the mental health profession through a closely associated organization, the so-called “Citizens Commission on Human Rights” (CCHR).

That group’s latest focus is a recent murder/suicide in Massachusetts, which involved a woman who was reportedly on antidepressant medication, reports the Boston Globe.

The CCHR claims the medication drove the woman to violence.

This so-called “watchdog group” seems willing to exploit any tragedy in an attempt to garner attention for its crusade against psychiatrists and/or other mental health professionals with meaningful credentials.

A Harvard Medical School psychiatrist called the group’s claim “preposterous.” Likewise, a drug researcher dismissed CCHR theories as groundless.

It should be understood that Scientology and the CCHR are not simply against antidepressant medication, but all prescribed psychiatric drugs and indeed the entire mental health profession, more specifically psychiatrists and psychologists.

Scientologists believe they alone possess the answers regarding mental health, as defined and established by their founder L. Ron Hubbard.

However, Hubbard had no degree in psychology or meaningful credentials in the field of mental health. He was instead a self-proclaimed “expert.”

A judge in California once said, “The organization [Scientology] clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be reflective of its founder.”

Hubbard appears to have struggled with mental problems. One of his wives perhaps summed it up succinctly when she said her husband was simply “crazy.”

Is the CCHR and Scientology’s obsession with psychiatry a reflection of L. Ron Hubbard’s past “paranoid” fear that one-day he might be locked up in the “nut house”?

Tom Cruise is filming his latest movie in New Zealand, but the actor still finds time to promote Scientology, reports The New Zealand Herald.

Cruise donated money to a “youth drug program,” but of course it was a Scientology based effort.

The Scientology effort Cruise touted this time is called “Drug-Free Ambassadors group,” which targets youth.

But critics of Scientology have repeatedly said that virtually any program associated with the controversial church can largely be seen as a recruitment effort, rather than simply social service.

The drug rehab program Narconon appears to be just such an example.

Perhaps Cruise should concentrate more on his career than religion.

After all, his last two films were not that successful and some say the star is not shining that brightly lately.

Maybe he should talk to ex-wife Nicole Kidman, who after apparently dumping Scientology, went on to win an Oscar.

In a recent interview John Travolta disclosed details regarding Priscilla Presley’s introduction to Scientology, reports Go Memphis.com.

While trying to pump up his flop Basic, the star disclosed how he apparently recruited Presley into the controversial church.

Travolta said, “After Elvis died, Priscilla Presley wanted to meet me. She was looking for some answers.”

The vulnerable Presley must have been easy prey for any proselytizer at the time.

Now Travolta sees the Presleys regularly at Scientology activities.

He says, “I see Lisa Marie about three times a year, and see her mom about twice a year. Lisa Marie’s kind of like my surrogate daughter. She always asks me about the guys she gets involved with.”

Lisa Marie may now be as gung-ho as her mother’s Scientology mentor.

The Elvis heir said in a recent interview, ”I took to [Scientology] because I found it answered all the questions to my satisfaction, about men, the mind, sanity. It made sense, and it’s kept me grounded,” reports Gannett News.

But Scientology’s answers “about men” and Travolta’s feedback doesn’t seem to have helped Presley that much in married life. She is a three-time loser at 35.

And the “sanity” Scientology somehow provides doesn’t appear to include common “sense.” Consider Presley’s bizarre marriage to alleged pedophile Michael Jackson.

Has the church’s teachings helped Travolta further develop his “sense” for good movie projects? He has made one flop after another and hasn’t had a hit in five years.

And was it “sanity” when the almost 50 former star of Saturday Night Fever turned down the role that won Richard Gere a Golden Globe in the Oscar winning film Chicago?

Does that make “sense”?

Maybe Presley’s right about one aspect of Scientology though.

It just might be keeping both her romantic life and Travolta’s career “grounded.”

America On Line (AOL) seems to have become “big brother.”

Not necessarily a kindly big brother to help Internet users, but more like what George Orwell calls “big brother” in his classic book 1984.

AOL shut down a long-standing educational website, because the webmaster didn’t remove certain historical information.

One article posted on cult watcher Carol Giambalvo’s website displeased someone important and AOL apparently concluded, much like the pigs on Orwell’s Animal Farm, “Some are more equal than others.”

The “more equal” apparently describes The Hunger Project (THP), an organization closely associated with Landmark Education. A controversial privately owned company, that stages a type of mass marathon training.

Landmark was previously known as Erhard Seminar Training (EST), founded by Werner Erhard. Their introductory weekend seminar is called the Forum.

Giambalvo, a former participant in both EST and THP wrote an article titled, The Hunger Project Inside Out.

But you won’t find it online anymore.

Why?

Giambalvo says it all started when, “The Hunger Project sent me a letter…asking me to remove it…[they said] the article [was] outdated.” The ex-ESTie says that she was given “the usual rap about them not being affiliated with Landmark programs or Werner Erhard.”

However, Christian Century exposed the historic ties between THP and EST in an article run in 1979.

And in fact, the Vice President at THP who sent the letter to Giambalvo, has ties to Landmark.

Giambalvo didn’t remove the offending piece. “I just put [their] letter at the end of [my] article so people could see their point of view,” she explains.

But that just wasn’t good enough.

As one of Orwell’s characters observed in 1984, “up to date…[means] any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was…scraped clean.”

When Giambalvo failed to comply THP complained to AOL and the Internet giant took immediate action. Giambalvo’s website was shut down without notice. And it was only restored after her “expression of opinion” was “scraped clean.”

Doesn’t this sound drastic for a media conglomerate, which includes journalism icon Time Magazine?

After all, Time is widely respected by cult watchers for its 1991 cover story “Scientology: The Cult of Greed.”

AOL it seems, should not be confused with its media partner.

Giambalvo concludes, “Wonderful freedom of speech we have here in America, but not America On Line!”

Has AOL become a corporate version of “big brother,” bent upon censorship to please the “more equal”?

Orwell summed this up neatly within 1984, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Note: Giambalvo now advises that a copy of the material previously posted about THP at her website is “available by direct request.”

Follow up: Carol Giambalvo advises that AOL brought to her attention the “terms of service” she agreed to, “which basically gives them license to say something is objectionable and to remove it.” She also admits AOL might have sent her a disconnect warning, but “I may have deleted it because…I get so much junk mail on AOL.”

Seems like two good reasons not to be an AOL user, the potential for censorship and spam.

Lisa Marie Presley supposedly has returned to the arms of her ex-lover John Oszajca, reports the Australian Herald Sun.

This on and off again relationship has an interesting history.

Three years ago Oszajca, a twenty-something musician, apparently almost marched down the much-treaded aisle with the Elvis heir.

But unlike her former husbands Michael Jackson and Nicholas Cage, Oszajca was reportedly ready to jump into Scientology, which seems to be the required rigor for Presley’s grooms.

The only child of Elvis is probably now worth about $200 million. Last year alone she made $32 million, without the need to do anything more than count the receipts.

Presley is a hefty cash cow, even amongst Scientology celebrities

And Scientology seems to have its veritable hooks sunk fairly deep into the ever-growing Elvis estate.

The money Lisa Marie has given the controversial church through courses, training, contributions and/or bequests must total millions.

With so much money on the line it’s doubtful that Presley’s Scientology friends and/or handlers would ever encourage her to marry outside of the organization, which has been called a “cult.”

Whenever Presley ties the knot with a non-believer, it doesn’t last long. Her marriage to Cage didn’t even make it to an anniversary.

Elvis’s daughter has few kind words for ex-husbands Jackson and Cage, but she remains close to her first groom Danny Keough, who is a Scientologist.

Maybe Oszajca the musician would make an acceptable mate? If he doesn’t play back up for the aspiring singer Presley, he might make a good Scientology stay-at-home dad.

In a “no holds barred” interview run in Rolling Stone Magazine, Lisa Marie Presley supposedly speaks out frankly and about her life.

However, the article comes across as more of a promotional puff piece and often neglects important facts.

Presley attempted to dismiss reports that Scientology has often dominated her life.

The daughter of Elvis says, “If you know anything about my personality” — she laughs — “you ‘ll know that’s not possible.”

But it doesn’t appear the reporter knows anything, or at least he’s not telling.

Danny Keough, Presley’s first husband, was and is a deeply devoted Scientologist. The reporter notes he was there during an interview session, “home schooling” their two children in the next room.

Presley says, “He ‘s my absolute best friend in the world…this is the one man I [will] be connected to for the rest of my life.”

Then there’s Paige Dorian, “her assistant and friend of eight years,” also a Scientologist. And Luke Watson, another Scientologist, who is “documenting her recent life on film.”

Watson was reportedly once assigned to look after Presley by Scientology.

Dorian and Watson accompanied her for dinner with the Rolling Stone reporter. She explained “They live my life with me.”

Presley and Watson first met reportedly in Clearwater, Florida, a bastion of Scientology, where she took church courses. Presley was there so much that she bought a home in the area, which was later sold to Kirstie Alley, another Scientologist.

Like Alley Presley claims to have overcome drugs. She says, “I did drugs for four years.” But is quick to point out that this was before she significantly embraced Scientology.

Part of Scientology’s cure for drugs is called the “purification rundown,” which may have caused Presley subsequent health problems.

However, she says those problems were due to dental fillings.

Ironically, Elvis apparently loathed Scientology. According to members of his inner circle he once said, “F – – – those people! There’s no way I’ll ever get involved with that son-of-a-bitchin’ group. All they want is my money.”

Lisa Marie now ardently dismisses and condemns long-time Elvis insiders.

Presley’s marital history is strange and strewn with Scientology connections.

Twenty days after ending her first marriage with Keough she married Michael Jackson in the Dominican Republic. Her first husband’s brother and wife, both Scientologists, witnessed that wedding.

The Jackson/Presley union ended after 20 months. And the lawyer that tied up the loose ends was John Coale, another Scientologist.

It was rumored that the Jackson marriage was a sham, concocted by the “King of Pop” and Scientology to neutralize an ugly sex scandal.

The Jackson marriage allegedly largely ended because the pop star made it clear that he would not be involved with the controversial church.

Presley’s most recent marriage only lasted four months.

Her third husband Nicholas Cage like Jackson, apparently wanted nothing to do with Scientology.

Obviously Lisa Marie Presley’s involvement with Scientology plays a very pivotal and influential role in her life.

The Rolling Stone reporter either didn’t care, didn’t dig deep enough, or apparently understood that such comments wouldn’t be appreciated.

It appears the heir to the Elvis estate has inherited more than her father’s money and looks, she seems to have a deeply troubled life too.

Madonna may be “shielded by psychic armor,” but the middle aged former “sex kitten” who now wants to talk about “serious issues” is getting a bit boring, or so it seems in an article recently run by W Magazine.

Could this be at least partially due to her spiritual work out schedule, which includes “several nights a week” at the “Kabbalah Center”?

Madonna certainly has become a devotee of this group that has been called a “cult.”

But she says, “I think the Kabbalah is very punk rock.”

Maybe Madonna’s right; Berg’s brand of “Kabbalah” has been criticized by scholars as more of a pop creation than traditional study of “Jewish mysticism.”

Madonna’s career is troubled. The pop diva’s film “Swept Away” was a flop and Elton John described her song for the movie Die Another Day as “the worst Bond tune of all time.”

Never mind, Madonna has more important things on her mind, “I need to stay focused on my spiritual studies,” she says. And claims to be “tired of shallowness.”

But wasn’t it the “shallowness” of the “material girl” that made her a pop icon in first place?

Madonna now even questions the basis of her stardom and says, “What was I really trying to prove.” And claims, “I’ve been given this place in the world for a reason.”

OK. But the once sharp-witted, go it alone woman looks like she may have lost her edge.

It seems that even the star’s sense of style may have been dulled by her spiritual quest.

Commenting on a recent fashion shoot Madonna said, “I can’t tell you how boring it is posing for pictures. It’s so boring. If I don’t feel like I’m creating something that means something, I don’t want to do it.”

The diva defines this mission for meaning as a “real responsibility…to bring light to the world and make the world a better place.” And adds, “That’s what I should be focused on thinking…Not-you know-being a ‘pop diva.'”

Is this just all about an aging “pop diva” trying to rationalize a fading career? Or does this reflect a transformation brought on by “cult” involvement?

Madonna says, “I change. I evolve. People can’t understand that…Maybe that’s what people find unsettling about me. But that’s so boring.”

But what seems really “boring” is this “change” and posturing produced by Madonna’s most recent evolution.

And it looks like other stars deeply involved within groups called “cults” may “evolve” that way too.

Witness the winding down of John Travolta’s career in one boring formula film after another. Even Tom Cruise’s last few efforts have been boring.

Both stars, like Madonna, constantly comment about the importance of their group and how it has changed and/or evolved their lives. Cruise and Travolta are both committed to Scientology.

However, Oscar winner Nicole Kidman who has apparently left Scientology doesn’t seem to have evolved too badly.

Maybe Madonna should call Kidman for advice and reconsider what she is “focused on thinking.”

Apparently “cult apologists” are concerned about the Elizabeth Smart case. They seem to feel a need to dismiss any claims that the kidnap victim was “brainwashed.”

Veteran cult defenders James Richardson, H. Newton Malony and Nancy Ammerman, have all been quoted concerning the case.

Dick Anthony, another “cult apologist,” more recently weighed in.

The mainstream media apparently overlooked Anthony, who describes himself as a “forensic psychologist,” so he found another outlet for his opinions.

His commentary about Elizabeth Smart is now posted on the website CESNUR (“Center for Studies on New Religons”), run by Massimo Introvigne.

Introvigne is an interesting character and reportedly connected to a group that has been called a “cult.” The organization is named “Tradition, Family and Property” (TFP). Not surprisingly, Introvigne seems to be personally offended by the “C” word (“cult”) and the “B” word (“brainwashing”).

Within his treatise Anthony laments how the “proponents of brainwashing theory” are misleading the public by “asserting that Elizabeth Smart was brainwashed.”

According to Anthony that “theory” was “formulated by the American CIA as a propaganda device.”

Hmmm, was Elizabeth then somehow the most recent victim of a CIA conspiracy?

No.

Anthony speculates that due to Elizabeth’s “strict Mormon upbringing…[she] may actually have been predisposed to accepting the stern religious authority of the self-appointed prophet Brian David Mitchell.”

Does this mean the Mormon Church and/or her family not only somehow predisposed Elizabeth to embrace the bizarre beliefs of others without question, but also to not seek help or identify herself to authorities when kidnapped?

Anthony seems to think so.

He says, “Such offbeat theological worldviews allegedly primarily attract conversions from rebellious young persons from Mormon backgrounds.”

Despite his self-proclaimed title of “forensic psychologist,” Anthony doesn’t offer any factual “forensic” evidence. And he doesn’t really explain Elizabeth’s strange behavior. Instead, everything is attributed to her “totalistic personality,” which was apparently just waiting to be Mitchell’s next “conversion.”

The good doctor is less kind to 70s cult kidnap victim Patricia Hearst.

Anthony says, “There is good reason to think that her involvement in SLA [Symbionese Liberation Army] crimes was based upon a real conversion.”

He does admit Hearst was exposed to “indoctrination.”

But just like Elizabeth, Anthony claims the then 19-year-old Patty Hearst’s capitulation to her captors, was all about “the interaction of her pre-existing totalistic personality.”

Anthony gets a bit nasty bashing Hearst as a “rebellious” teenager who “…took psychedelic drugs” and was “dualistically divided between corrupt mainstream people and good counter-culture people and down-trodden minorities.”

Uh huh.

He concludes, “Hearst fit the profile of an ‘individual totalist’ prone to seeking for a totalitarian counter-cultural worldview.”

Huh?

Apparently, the SLA really didn’t need to violently abduct Hearst at gunpoint from her college campus or imprison the girl for months in a closet and brutally beat her. She was ready to accept their beliefs willingly, and all they needed to do was proselytize a bit to produce a “real conversion.”

Likewise, Elizabeth Smart’s kidnapping, months of confinement and her assault, did not contribute to her “brainwashing”—it’s that old “totalistic personality” ready for a “real conversion” once again.

In his latest foray in the realm of “forensic psychology” Anthony cites the “research” of a relatively small group of academics that share his views about “cults.”

He mentions the work of Stuart Wright, “Jim” James Richardson, Eileen Barker, H. Newton Maloney, Anson Shupe, David Bromley and Gordon Melton and of course his sponsor Massimo Introvigne.

However, all these “academics” are within the world of “cult apologists.”

In fact, Bromley, Melton, Maloney, Richardson and Wright have all been recommended as “religious resources” by the Church of Scientology.

Melton and Barker were funded by “cults” to produce books.

Anson Shupe was paid hefty fees by Scientology lawyers to become their “expert witness” about the “anti-cult movement.”

Benjamin Zablocki, Professor of Sociology at Rutgers University put it succinctly when he said, “The sociology of religion can no longer avoid the unpleasant ethical question of how to deal with the large sums of money being pumped into the field by the religious groups being studied… This is an issue that is slowly but surely building toward a public scandal. I do think there needs to be some more public accounting of where the money is coming from and what safeguards have been taken to assure that this money is not interfering with scientific objectivity.”

This brings us back to Dick Anthony.

Last year Anthony made $21,000.00 consulting on one civil case alone, without even appearing in court.

That case involved a wrongful death claim filed against Jehovah’s Witnesses and a “Bethelite” (full-time ministry worker) named Jordon Johnson in Connecticut, by John J. Coughlin, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of his mother Frances S. Coughlin .

Johnson killed Francis Coughlin in an automobile accident and was criminally convicted for manslaughter.

The Coughlin family sued both Johnson and the organization that controlled him, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, commonly called Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Dick Anthony was hired by the Watchtower Society as an “expert,” to assist them in their defense. And in the process was deposed under oath on October 11, 2002.

The man, who prides himself as a “scholar” and “academic” actually admitted that he hasn’t worked within an institution of higher learning (i.e. a university or college) for more than twenty years.

So how does Dick Anthony support himself?

He is “self-employed.” The name of his business is simply, “Dick Anthony, Ph.D.”

What does Dick Anthony Ph.D. do?

Dr. Anthony explains, “Probably two-thirds of my time to three-quarters of my time is spent writing for publication, and probably a quarter of my time to a third of my time is involved with participating in legal cases.”

Anthony’s writings are most often connected to defending “cults,” attacking the so-called “anti-cult movement” and/or the “proponents of the brainwashing theory.”

His work on “legal cases,” is as an “expert” hired by “cults,” or somehow as a “expert witness” in a related area of interest.

What this admission by Anthony means, is that he can easily be seen as a full-time professional “cult apologist,” who has no other means of meaningful income.

How much does he get paid?

Anthony stated for the record, “My fee for reviewing materials in my office is $350 an hour. And my fee for work outside my office is a flat fee of $3,500 a day plus expenses.”

Anthony admitted that he collected “$21,000” on the Coughlin/Watchtower Society case alone. And that was without even appearing in court.

For his deposition of only a few hours, he was paid “$3,500.”

Who else besides Jehovah’s Witnesses is willing to pay such substantial fees?

Anthony listed some of his clients for the record. That list included the “Unification Church, the Hare Krishna movement…The Way International [and] Church of Scientology.”

All of these groups have been called “cults.”

But Dr. Anthony doesn’t like the “C” word, he prefers “nontraditional religions.”

On his list of “nontraditional religions” are the Branch Davidians, Unification Church and he says, “In the United States, the Catholic Church, well it’s definitely the largest nontraditional religion.”

Dr. Anthony belongs to a “nontraditional religion” himself.

Explaining his own background Anthony stated, “I’m a follower of Meher Baba” and a member of the “Meher Baba Lovers of Northern California.”

According to Jeffrey Hadden, a fellow “cult apologist” who is now deceased, Meher Baba and his followers believe that he was the “God incarnate” and the Avatar of the ‘dark or iron’ age, also called the Kali Yuga.”

Baba died in 1969. Gordon Melton says, “By loving Baba, Baba lovers can learn to love others. In the highest, most intense, state of love, Divine Love, the distinction between the lover and the beloved ceases and one attains union with God.”

Sound like a personality-driven group that would be perceived by many as a “cult”? Anthony would of course prefer the description “nontraditional religion.”

The good doctor calls himself a “forensic psychologist,” which supposedly means the application of medical facts to legal problems.

So what facts does Dick Anthony apply to resolve the legal cases he is paid to testify and/or consult about?

When asked what specific research he relied upon regarding the Coughlin case against Jehovah’s Witnesses Anthony replied that he would largely rely upon “a range of materials provided me by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

Did Dick Anthony have any experience as a psychologist helping Witnesses, “None as far as I know,” he said.

Anthony also openly admitted he had done no formal research or published any paper about Jehovah’s Witnesses.

So what facts or direct working experience would be applied or used as the basis for rendering his expert opinion?

Anthony said he would base his opinion largely on a “general knowledge of the sociology and psychology of religion.”

When pressed repeatedly during the deposition for something more specific and scientific Anthony cited, “The research of Rodney Stark…generally considered to be probably the leading expert on sects and cults.”

Stark like Anthony has received money from “cults” and has often been called an “apologist.” He is not “generally considered” a “leading expert” on the subject cited either.

Anthony later said he would rely on an article by his old friend “James Richardson [though he couldn’t remember the title]…and…several articles by Catherine Wah [correct name actually Carolyn Wah].”

Carolyn Wah was the in-house attorney assigned to defend Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Coughlin case and a long-time “Bethelite” herself, working full-time at Watchtower headquarters.

Interestingly, it was Richardson who Anthony later admitted had referred him to the Witnesses for the job.

During his deposition Dick Anthony cited other legal cases he was working on at the time.

He claimed to be “a witness for the prosecution” in the criminal case against Winnfred Wright. Anthony said some of Wright’s followers were “claiming that they are innocent because they were brainwashed.”

This criminal case involved the starvation death of a 19-month-old boy.

Described as a “cult” by Associated Press, Anthony called the criminally destructive group a “little family.”

Apparently the judge didn’t agree with Anthony’s expert opinion. He ordered one of Wright’s followers released for “cult deprogramming” so she could “enter a treatment clinic for former cult members,” reported the Marin News.

Wright received the maximum sentence allowed.

Anthony also said he was advising “the Church of Scientology in Ireland…in Dublin.”

This is clearly a reference to a lawsuit filed against Scientology by Mary Johnson, a former Irish member who alleged “psychological and psychiatric injuries.” Anthony said, “I’ve had a number of conversations with [Scientology] about that.”

But despite those “conversations” Scientology decided pay off Johnson. And costs alone ran them more than a million.

And what about the Coughlin case?

After paying Anthony $21,000 in fees and on the first day of trial, the Jehovah’s Witnesses opted to settle too. They cut a check to the plaintiff for more than $1.5 million dollars. This was historically the largest settlement ever paid by the organization, which has been around for more than a century.

It seems Dr. Anthony doesn’t have a very good track record in the recent legal cases he has consulted on.

Perhaps Anthony himself explained this best during his deposition when he said, “It is the nature of pseudo-science…to pretend to certainty in interpreting situations where such certainty cannot possibly be based upon scientific knowledge. Such false claims of certain knowledge in the absence of a clear factual foundation for that knowledge are more characteristic of totalistic ideology than of genuine science.”

Indeed. So who really has a “totalistic personality” after all?

Dick Anthony seems not only a “pretend[er],” but as can be seen through the Coughlin case, he actually offers no directly applicable “scientific knowledge” or “clear factual foundation” to form his opinions.

Instead of applying medical facts and/or “genuine science” to resolve legal problems, this “forensic psychologist” seems to offer only “pseudo-science,” in an effort to please the “nontraditional religions,” who are paying clients and represent his predominant source of income.

Despite Anthony’s repeated failures he is still being paid $3,500 per day, which is not bad, or is it?

Note: Copies of the Dick Anthony deposition are available for an $18.00 tax-deductible donation to The Ross Institute

Scientology won’t be able to advertise it helped 250,000 people beat drug addiction, at least not in Great Britain.

The Advertising Standards Authority there ruled that Scientology must stop posting such claims on billboards and posters because the organization has not proven this claim, reports the London Telegraph.

Does this mean that celebrities like Kirstie Alley and Lisa Marie Presley will temper their remarks about how Scientology “saves people” from drugs?

Probably not.

The authority said, perhaps some people may have been helped, but it’s not clear if they were actually “addicts” and/or what the exact count of those “addicts” is.

Scientology typically pushes a controversial rehab program called Narconon, which supposedly is a vehicle to both beat drug addiction and “purify” users of its residual effects.

The “purification rundown” used within the Narconon program has also been promoted by celebrities like Kelly Preston to rid the body generally of any “toxins.”

However, don’t expect Preston or her husband John Travolta to cite peer reviewed scientific research substantiating such claims, there is none.