Talk:Jason Scott case

The unanimous verdict

The unanimous verdict of the jury in the criminal trial for Ross was "not guilty."

The court record and numerous news reports such as the Phoenix New Times demonstrates this.

Anson Shupe and Kendrick Moxon are not reliable sources and should not be used per the policies of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.10.31 (talk • contribs)

Shupe source should not be used

Jayen466 (talk · contribs) used the Anson Shupe source to write that the criminal trial of Rick Ross (consultant) in the Jason Scott case resulted in a "hung jury" [1], [2]. This is a false statement. See this source (cited by Jayen466 himself for other info in the article and yet neglected in this instance) where it states: "On January 18, 1994, after just two hours of deliberations, a Greys Harbor jury acquitted Rick Ross of unlawful detainment." This is corroborated in other secondary sources as well:

• Perkes, Kim Sue Lia (January 21, 1994). "Cult deprogrammer acquitted: Had been charged with unlawful imprisonment". The Arizona Republic. Nationally known cult deprogrammer Rick Ross of Phoenix has been acquitted of unlawful-imprisonment charges in Grays Harbor County Superior Court in Montesano, Washington. ... Ross also credited the eight-woman, four-man jury, which deliberated only two hours, for being able to see through the prosecution's attempts to paint him as a criminal. ... Jeff Ranes, Ross' attorney said several jury members hugged Ross after the verdict "and told him, 'We thought you did the right thing,' and, 'Keep up the good work.'

Again, Anson Shupe as a source is unreliable, and should not be used. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take it to RS/N. Jayen466 19:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not add sources "supporting" claims which they do not support

The article claims that "Jason testified that he then endured five days of derogatory comments about himself, his beliefs, his girlfriend and his pastor, and diatribes by Ross about the ways in which Christianity and conservative Protestantism were wrong." These are highly specific claims. It goes without saying that no source which does not even mention these highly specific claims should be cited as a source for them.

However, that is exactly what Jayen466 did in this edit, claiming that this newspaper article by a Thomas Haines was a source for the claim. Here is the only part of the Haines article which is even close to the sentence in question: "Scott claims deprogrammer Rick Ross and others held him in a room, subjecting him 'to a nearly constant barrage of verbal abuse intended to force Scott to renounce his faith,' according to court papers." There is no mention of the target of Ross' alleged "barrage of verbal abuse"; the Haines article cannot be cited as "support" for the claim that Ross went on "diatribes ... about the ways in which Christianity and conservative Protestantism were wrong."

Of the two remaining possible sources for this claim, one of them is the book by Shupe and Darnell. Shupe admitted in the Scott trial that he did not base even his expert testimony on the actual statements of the plaintiffs and defendants, but upon "excerpts" of them provided by the same man named by the Federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator for providing false handwriting samples. This is definitely not a source that we can rely upon for such specific and controversial claims. Do we in fact have any reliable source that supports these claims? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Anson Shupe, expert witness

Since the focus of this article is the Jason Scott case(s), not Rick Ross, there is certainly reason to cover Anson Shupe's role as an expert witness for the prosecution. (Although, not as a coat-rack to hang criticism unrelated to the cases.) AndroidCat (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Kidnapping

Weren't the participants found "not guilty" on the kidnapping charges? If so, why are we using that term? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Various sources use the term; e.g. [3] (p. 26, 2nd para from bottom of page) [4] (off Ross Institute website) [5] ("a young man named Jason Scott -- who had been kidnapped and deprogrammed from an evangelical Christian sect", New Times LA article on lermanet.com) etc. Jayen466 22:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To be precise, Ross was acquitted of a criminal charge of "unlawful imprisonment", according to multiple RS, e.g. [6]. This article also states that Scott was "abducted and held captive". Jayen466 23:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So who was convicted of "violent kidnapping"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit stated in its appeal decision that "With the aid of two confederates, Ross abducted Scott and held him captive for five days". (The document also mentions that CAN denied endorsing "violent deprogrammings", in direct relation to this specific case.) Jayen466 00:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article refers to a "violent abduction". Jayen466 00:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another account here, by another scholar, stating that

"deprogrammer Rick Ross and Cult Awareness Network (CAN) were found guilty by jury trial of the abduction and involuntary deprogramming of Jason Scott, a Pentecostal convert to the Life Tabernacle Church, in U.S. District Court in Washington. The jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages to Mr. Scott in the amount of 4.9 million for violating his civil rights (Scott vs. Ross et al. 1995). In 1991, Scott was assaulted by Ross and his accomplices, wrestled to the ground, dragged to a nearby house, handcuffed, spirited away by his "rescuers" and thrown into the back of a van. Scott told jurors he was pinned down by his kidnappers, his ankles tied with a nylon strap, duct tape was wrapped around his face from ear to ear, and he was told to "stop praying and shut up". The court upheld the decision in an appeal by Ross and CAN, and the judge stated in his 15-page order that the defendants' "seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr. Scott" made the large award "necessary to enforce the jury's determination on the oppressiveness of the defendants' actions and deter similar conduct in future."

— The Politics of Religious Apostasy, David G. Bromley, Greenwood Publishing Group

Jayen466 01:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of "dialog" from court records

The supposed dialog between Scott and Ross isn't. It's one person's account of what was said and isn't properly attributed in the article. i.e. "According to Scott, Ross said that ..." Buck-passing to the Shupe reference won't save this, it need to go. AndroidCat (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't know if it is one person's account. One of Ross's associates (Rotroff, who turned state's evidence in the criminal trial) testified against the defendants and may have corroborated it. However, I am not averse to inserting "according to testimony", and indeed agree it would be proper to do so. Jayen466 12:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Jayen466 12:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Shupe even reference who actually said what? "According to testimony" is far too vague. Clean it up, or I'll do it when I have time. Meanwhile, I've put out a call for law article experts to have a look. AndroidCat (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Shupe simply states it as fact. "Jason demanded ...", "Ross responded ...". However, he prefaces the entire account by saying it is "based closely on court documents and testimonies, including Scott's own under-oath account." I see no good reason to depart further from the presentation in the source, unless one of us can get hold of the actual court documents. Jayen466 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Does Shupe qualify as a third-party source? AndroidCat (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and Bias of editor Jayen466

Jayen466 has dominated this article as its primary editor. This article is accordingly skewed using edited comments sliced and assembled in such a way as to represent a distinct point of view. Anonymous editor Jayen466 has a direct conflict of interest regarding the subjects of this article, i.e. deprogramming, cults and Rick Ross. Jayen466 is a supporter of a notorious guru named "Osho" also known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Rajneesh has often been called a "cult leader" and the Ross Institute Internet Archives, which I founded, reflects this historical fact through a subsection devoted to news articles about the guru, who was an infamous character in Oregon before his forced departure from the US and death. Jayen466 apparently is unhappy about any information available through the Internet that discredits his guru and so he has apparently taken it on as something like a mission, to use Wikipedia entries as a means of retaliation against those with critical information about Osho. It is sad that Wikipedia can be used this way. Perhaps Wikipedia should sort through such situations and not allow people to edit articles that have such an obvious conflict of interest and/or personal agenda. For example, I cannot edit this article. All I can do is bring out the above facts and hope that visitors/readers will find it on this Discussion page.Rick A. Ross (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

False and misleading statements

There are many false and misleading statements within this article. Often the editor of this article, who is a devotee of Osho/Rajneesh and has a vested POV regarding groups called "cults," uses questionable sources with a strong bias. Many of these sources have been called "cult apologists" such as David Bromley, Anson Shupe and the organization known as CESNUR. Anston Shupe has been a paid expert employed by Scientology lawyers. Many of the most outrageous and ridiculous statements can be attributed to these tainted sources.

Jason Scott was not simply "a member of a Pentecostalist church." This statement is grossly misleading. He was in fact a member of the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), a fringe organization outside of the mainstream of Pentecostalism, which denounces Christians that believe in the trinity as "pagans" and further condemns all Christians that are not baptized according to the group's beliefs in the name of Jesus only. The UPCI does not fellowship with mainstream Pentecostals such as the Assemblies of God or other Christians. The UPCI also practices what is called the "holiness standards," which includes a rigid dress and grooming code, e.g. men must be cleanshaven, maintain conservative haircuts and refrain from wearing jewelry. Women may not cut their hair, must wear dresses well below the knee with long sleeves and also refrain from using make-up or wearing jewelry. The UPCI has often been referred to as "heretical" and called a "cult" by evangelical Christians. See http://www.watchman.org/cults/upc.htm And former members also have alleged abuses see http://www.spiritualabuse.org/