Summary: Circumstances indicate Ursula Caberta used Graham Berry's statements in a May 30, 2002 German-langugage article denouncing Minton at least twice: once to get off criminal charges with only a 7,500 euro fine in June 2002, and again on April 16, 2003. The first date has heretofore been ignored, while the latter is the one on which Berry first referred to Caberta's negative attitude towards Minton.

Tilman Hausherr sets the record straight on Caberta's fine

While time stood as though still during the lengthy Black PR campaign against Bob Minton on Internet News Group alt.religion.scientology (A.R.S.) in June 2002, Ursula Caberta was preparing to argue in a German court that Minton was aligned with Scientology. Making Minton an issue, according to Berry's later explanation, was to enable Caberta to continue fighting the corrupt cult. While Caberta was certainly struggling, there is adequate room for doubt as to whether she was effective against either corruption or Scientology.

Before her yet-to-be-proclaimed victory over Minton/Scientology, Caberta ended up paying a 7,500 euro fine for corruption. In giving statements to the press about this event, which she represented as relatively successful, she made libelous statements against Scientology, for which she was subsequently successfully sued. A few months later, Caberta was forced in the German court system to limit distribution of the Hubbard declaration, a tool that had previously been used to curb the harmful practices of Scientology. Most recently, Caberta politically aligned herself with the Left Party. This faction is under surveillance in Germany for extremist activity. So there is room for doubt as to the extent to which Caberta can claim success in her declared war against corruption and Scientology.

The following is an account of how Caberta paid the 7,500 euro fine that, according to Tilman Hausherr -- a German expert on Scientology, according to various German State Offices for the Protection of the Constitution -- was not a fine. It tells the story of what went on behind a rather obscure post made by Tilman Hausherr to news group alt.religion.scientology (A.R.S.).

On January 1st, 2003, Martin Ottmann posted a "Federal Complaint II - Public Controversy (c)" against Bob Minton to the A.R.S. news group. In his far-reaching list of accusations, Ottmann included a narration of a criminal complaint against Caberta as if it were a charge against Bob Minton. To accomplish this, Ottmann did some creative editing of a German-language article from the German Hamburger Abendblatt newspaper. Ottmann reworded the crime for which Caberta was indicted as if Bob Minton were to blame for the criminal charge against Caberta. (The charge lay not in the offering of a loan, but in the acceptance of it by a government official.) Ottmann posted:

"Meanwhile in Hamburg Ursula Caberta had to face the legal consequences of her acceptance of Minton's loan during June of the year 2000. On June 27th the "Hamburger Abendblatt" reported that a district court of the city of Hamburg had issued a fine of 7,500 euro against her, as it deemed the Minton loan as improper due to Caberta's position in a public office [Exh. No. 80]."

Tilman Hausherr responded to Ottmann's post, but did so on a minor technicality, without commenting upon the fact that Ottmann had faulted Minton for Caberta's misadventures.

*

Never defend, always attack

-- Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard

*

It is not correct to have named it a "fine", because there was no finding nor admission of guilt. See explanation about 153a StPO on dsws:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm= s3l7lucavt275u9qisbck 618i1o7sd941o%404ax.com

[dsws is the de.soc.weltanschauung.scientology news group. The message cited was "not found". Hausherr's unnamed source of information about 153, Renate Hartwig, is a person he and Caberta have derided for recognizing the legal rights of Scientologists. Although Hartwig may sometimes be out in left field, she was the one who set Hausherr straight on this little point, as is demonstrated later on in this page .. Lermanet.]

Hausherr went on to alledge misreporting by the German newspaper.

The "Hamburger Abendblatt" is misreporting this, partly in an attempt to cover up their previous incorrect reporting.

He never substantiated this allegation.

In short, Hausherr further further confused an issue, which Ottmann had already stood completely on its head, by denying that Ursula Caberta paid a fine, even though she was out 7,500 euro as a result of corruption charges. The important distinction between a punitive fine and the administrative fine Caberta paid is that an administrative fine carries no record of wrongdoing, i.e., Caberta was not convicted.

The newspaper Ottmann cited accurately and properly documents this fact.

Fine for Caberta

Hamburger Abendblatt, June 27, 2002

The investigation of the charges of corruption and misuse of office brought against Scientology-chaser Ursula Caberta in September 2000 have come to an preliminary end. The Hamburg city court imposed a fine in the amount of 7,500 euro against Caberta in monthly payments of 1,250 euro.

Scientology brought Caberta up on charges for having had received $75,000 from US businessman Bob Minton. She described the sum as a private loan, but the Scientologists saw it as corruption and misuse of office because Caberta had dealt with Minton on the job and thus could no longer be unbiased toward him.

The decision to impose a preliminary fine is apparently a result of a deal between prosecution and defense. According to the Abendblatt's information, the prosecuting attorney had originally wanted a conviction, but would settle for a fine. This does not count as a conviction for Caberta.

As far as the court goes, the charges have been "provisionally dropped." According to the court spokesman, once Caberta accepts the fine, charges are dropped.

Prior to the January 2003 posts mentioned above, another German-language article about Caberta's fine appeared in the October 29, 2002 Die Welt magazine. This article contained an interview with Caberta herself. She used the occasion not to futilely argue the use of the word "fine," but to single-handedly take credit for the cult's failure in Hamburg. In doing this, she unfortunately found it necessary to make public statements for which the Scientologists would later successfully sue her.

Caberta was trying to set the tone of the article by talking about how well she was doing. She was not pulling this off very well, likely because she was in the process of making the monthly installments to pay her fine for corruption. Nevertheless, after ten years of fighting Scientology, Caberta said, she was definitely on top of things. Some of Caberta's appeal to anti-American sentiment, more obvious now since her recent political coming out of the closet, came to light when she implied that it was not Germans, but Americans, who were supporting Scientology in Hamburg. This might have been true in the short term, but the entire purpose of local organizations is to support the "Mother Church," not the other way around.

As usual, the only ones who dared to public contradict the German government official were the Scientologists. They rose to the occasion by suing Caberta for her statement that Scientology was bankrupt. The Scientologists wrote several specifications against Caberta, several of which were to be recognized permanently in court. (See Caberta sued for saying Scientology is bankrupt - 2003.)

Source: Die Welt of October 29, 2002

"The concept shot up"
Scientology appointee Caberta strikes a positive balance after ten years in office

by Insa Gall

The inconspicuous office building is situated on an non-residential section of Eiffestrasse. [...] Actually she has struck a positive balance. In the beginning of the 1990s, the Hamburg group of Scientology was the most successful in the world. At that time, according to Caberta, the organization controlled about a third of the real estate market in Hamburg. Today the 52-year-old woman is convinced that the former fortress is a problem for its American headquarters. [...] Caberta says the organization is attached finacially to its "umbilical cord with the USA." "In my opinion," said Caberta, "the organization in Hamburg is bankrupt." [...]

Declared "persona non grata" by the Scientologists, the Hamburg woman is spied upon, libeled and threatened. Private detectives follow her wherever she goes, investigate her past and even lie in wait for childhood friends. After several attempts to take the 52-year-old woman to court, the organization finally succeeded in marring the image of the pugnacious source of information. In June of this year, the Hamburg city court fined her 7,500 euro for corruption for having taken $75,000 from American businessman Bob Minton, a stubborn Scientology opponent. Caberta believes she was unfairly blamed. Even though she got to know Minton on the job, she says, he turned into a friend from whom she received a private loan. Couldn't it nevertheless have been a mistake to offer the Scientologists, who had her under constant obseration, an excuse for attacking her? "To this day I don't see how it could have been an excuse to attack me, but if one sees it this way, then perhaps it really was a mistake," she interjects.

[Note: While Caberta is to be admired in the work she has done exposing the cult, she did leave Germany twice during which time she informed Scientology lawyers that she accepted a private loan from Bob Minton, and she even signed legal court documents to that effect.]

In spite of her success, the Scientology opponent says this is not the time for people to let their guard down.

[...]

According to Caberta, the mistake that was made lie not in her accepting a loan from an opponent of Scientology, but in giving Scientology an excuse to attack her. As Caberta herself is the one who gave Scientology this information, her competence, if not her intention, can validly be called into question on the above point.

Meanwhile, back on June 27, 2002, although Renate Hartwig incorrectly indicated on the German-language de.soc.weltanschauung news group that the German taxpayers would be paying Caberta's fine for her, she still scored a potentially valid point on taxpayer fraud. Hartwig also made the all too common error of substituting the word "convicted" for "indicted", but is nevertheless correct to the extent that there was enough evidence of corruption for an indictment.

Caberta was fined 7,500 euro for corruption. This is evidence from a criminal case that she has misused her office. In civil court it has already been proved in several cases that she used her office for campaigns of personal revenge, which means misuse of office is a routine for her. She also had to answer questions in court about operations she launched through her office against third parties. The people in the Interior Senate are not quite through with her behind the scenes. Now they need to know to what extent this "taking advantage of office" (or "corruption") was a one-time occurrence. Thus Caberta has misled taxpayers in that she misused her office for private gain.

Here is a reminder for the whitewasher's foot soldiers, that they have committed taxpayer fraud because they've obscured anything that would have brought transparency to this monstrosity and stopped it. Liars and those who deceive the public are the ones who should immediately stop shooting off their mouths about "sects" and how to deal with them.

Although Cabarta [sic] has escaped conviction with 153 of the criminal code this time, don't forget that it was the state attorney who ordered the indictment. This meant none other than she was guilty of having engaged in corruption to the detriment of the public. Caberta's defense proposed a deal - a fine and dropping charges in accordance with 153 - and the state attorney went along with it.

That was only in answer to the vindictive statement of a certain TH who likes to put up the front of agent provocateur and who disgraces himself over and over.

"Fine" does not mean anything else: Caberta cannot go on blaming everything on the Scientologists. SHE misused her office and that IS taxpayer fraud. Now let's see if she has the guts to talk about this case so openly and happily as she does other other things.

Starting today the people who take a stand against the cover-ups and lies from this guild of whitewashers around Caberta are those taxpayers who make an honest living and who support our social system with their taxes. Caberta's ripping off Bob Minton for the $75,000 was only ONE example of misuse of office.

Complaints filed by various taxpayers will now shine more light in the corner on those things that no longer fit under the carpet. One more thing for the whitewashers: your plans for a European refuge for cult ex-members (literally translated: "Victimpot Europe") are endangered by the conviction and loss of license for an American supporting attorney. People are going to be more careful about supporting this dream now. Before you make plans at other people's expense again, learn how to be more organized.

You'd be better off today thinking about how you're going to pay fines. More things may get cleared up in the aftermath: how have the others declared the money they got from Minton for PR gags with the LMT?

Caberta was permitted to pay her fine in installments, which at least shows that nothing is left from Minton's $75,000 ::))) I found out that's the way she did it the first time I got my money from the court cases she lost! One thing I know for sure is that she hasn't spent the money with her whitewashers. All they can do is play the pony, well have fun doing that, starting today it's not going to be so fun anymore.......!

Everyone have a nice day - more on the theme tonight on my web site have fun reading and turning .....

RH

Tilmann Hausherr was skeptical of Renate Hartwig's report.

On 27 Jun 2002 16:02:17 +0200, Renate Hartwig wrote:

Caberta was fined 7,500 euro for corruption.

That's what you say. How are you supposed to know that? Why should we believe you. I can't imagine that the state attorney talked it over with you. If if he did, I think that's terrible! (Because you had nothing at all to do with this.) And it definitely was not Mrs. Caberta that told you.

So where do you get this (alleged) information from? Or have you gotten this (alleged) information in a manner that would be too painful for you to disclose?

And assuming your assertion does check out, what service was provided in return, the official one? No corruption without service provided in return.

Even more interesting would be what's behind the Minton loan.

[According to unverified information, the Scientologists had acquired a loan made to Caberta and were going to foreclose. Minton gave her the money to save her from bankruptcy, which is a bigger disgrace in Germany than it is in the US .. Lermanet]

Surely you would know more about that. Did Mrs. Caberta want to buy herself a new car, a new apartment or a painting, or alternatively had she come upon financial difficulties due to external factors?

Based on earlier postings from you or from those around you I know that you know about this, so why so quiet over this particular aspect ::))) Would it be that Mrs. Caberta is in an essentially better light, but that does not suit you?

Although Cabarta

Who is "Cabarta"?

has escaped conviction with 153 of the criminal code this time

Mrs. Hartwig, 153 of the criminal code is "False sworn testimony." Corruption is 331 of the criminal code.

Please inform yourself before you write. And keep in mind that people will question your assertions, research them and check them out thoroughly.

http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/153.html
http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/331.html

don't forget that is was the state attorney who ordered the indictment. This meant none other than she was guilty of having engaged in corruption to the detriment of the public.

No, Mrs. Hartwig, that's not how it is. One is not guilty if the state attorney orders an indictment, it only means that the state prosecutor has asked for something.

Your understanding of law is really pitiful, Mrs. Hartwig.

Besides that you have presumably mixed up "charged" and "convicted," you wrote "convicted" earlier. It is not until someone accepts his conviction that things change.

Complaints filed by various taxpayers will now shine more light in the corner on those things that no longer fit under the carpet.

Do these "complaints" really exist or is this like those other things you don't talk about any more (example, petitions, studies, books with dedications, TV coverage and much more).

Cordially yours,

Tilman Hausherr

P.S.: What's your petition doing?

P.P.S: Where is the study about this news group?

P.P.P.S: Where is the book you promised you'd dedicate to me?

P.P.P.P.S: Where is the TV coverage that was announced?

P.P.P.P.P.S: Where is the Potthoff court decision that was promised?

P.P.P.P.P.P.S: Where are the foreign translations of your book?

P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S: Where is the answer to your "official inquiry" to the FRG?

P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S: Where is the information that's been published mentioned in http://www.renatehartwig.de/artikel.shtml?id=9902019?

It may have struck alt.religion.scientology subscribers by now that Tilman Hausherr is more of a "Tigger" in his native tongue than he is the scrupulously correct German he plays on A.R.S. Hartwig responded several hours later on June 27, 2002, and gave Hausherr the information he was to later correct Martin Ottmann with on A.R.S.

Tilman Hausherr wrote:

That's what you say. How are you supposed to know that?

From the Hamburg newspaper, among others, YOU poisonous little dwarf. Biting your desk, frothing and spitting bile won't help you either. It's over boy. So long for now, I have something else to do ::))) Besides, just ask your lawyer what dropping charges with 153 a means, it's real comical what you're pulling off here, you little know-it-all. Just a know-it-all wannabe, because you are so well inforned [sic]. Why not in this case? Man, are you dumb, constantly disgracing yourself this way! You and a man ::)) Get a clue. YOU sung in the wrong choir, as they say to someone who does everything wrong. A smart choir director would say that's it, the concert is over and the choir would break up. That's real easy to understand.

And here on the Internet is your search guide. Simply take the link that I list here, can you do that today? Get your nurse and have her read it to you.

http://www2.abendblatt.de/daten/2002/06/27/40396.html

Then take some Valerian, go to sleep and dream about the ten little schemers .... and when you wake up tomorrow morning, tell the readers of this NG how much of this was a dream.

That's the way life really is TH - tough but friendly. You won't know you've done something once too often until you break something! Whether YOU believe it or not is completely insignificant and of interest to no one, absolutely no one, as tough as that is for you! Now call for you nurse ....

RH

The "take some valerian" line apparently stuck with Hausherr, as he used it on someone he disagreed with in 2004. Here is his response of June 27, 2002.

Renate Hartwig wrote:

Hausherr: That's what you say. How are you supposed to know that?

Hartwig: From the Hamburg newspaper, among others, YOU poisonous little dwarf. [...] http://www2.abendblatt.de/daten/2002/06/27/40396.html

Mrs. Hartwig, the phrase "you poisonous little dwarf" does not seem to me to be exactly suitable for moderation and a factual discussion. This is no longer a matter of discussion, but of disparagement of my person.

["Disparagement of My Person" has legal significance in Germany and is the sort of thing Hausherr sues critics for .. Lermanet.]

Besides calling me a "poisonous dwarf" you also called me "little." How tall do you think I am? 16 inches? Get realistic. Even a "little dwarf" is at least three feet hight.

If it came from the Hamburg newspapers, why didn't you say that to begin with? You were trying to cover it up at first, otherwise why wouldn't you have said it differently. Stop us from forming our own opinion from what the newspaper said? Tsk, Tsk.

Just a know-it-all wannabe, because you are so well inforned [sic]. Why not in this case?

You'll find this hard to believe, but in the case of the state against Caberta, I have not been "informed." Why not is Caberta's problem, I would never interfere with this. You've overestimated my connections, but that's alright with me ::)))

So long for now, I have something else to do ::)))

Let me guess, it is either something with "clarification," or something with "cheese noodles" or something in Dusseldorf. Right?

>RH
>--
>__________________________________________________________
>News suchen, lesen, schreiben mit http://newsgroups.web.de

Aha - "Google Groups" was probably too slow.

Cordially yours,

Tilman Hausherr

P.S.: What's your petition doing?

P.P.S: Where is the study about this news group?

P.P.P.S: Where is the book you promised you'd dedicate to me?

P.P.P.P.S: Where is the TV coverage that was announced?

P.P.P.P.P.S: Where is the Potthoff court decision that was promised?

P.P.P.P.P.P.S: Where are the foreign translations of your book?

P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S: Where is the answer to your "official inquiry" to the FRG?

P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S: Where is the information that's been published mentioned in http://www.renatehartwig.de/artikel.shtml?id=9902019?

Hartwig replied to Hausherr at: 28 Jun 2002 02:05:50 +0200

Tilman Hausherr wrote:

Let me guess -

You can't let yourself guess, but interesting to hear you back-paddle because "I know nothing"

[a phrase made famous by Sergeant Schulz of "Hogan's Heroes". It's most frequently used to make a derogatory reference to German soldiers when they demonstrate an obsession with technicalities by following orders without knowing why. .. Lermanet]

Tilman the chicken knows nothing from now on?
Man, that's exactly how I had you pegged!

RH

Hausherr responded to this the evening of June 28, 2002.

Renate Hartwig wrote:

Tilman the chicken knows nothing from now on?
Man, that's exactly how I had you pegged!

No, you did not. Because yesterday you were writing:

"because you are so well inforned [sic]."

[Hartwig meant to write "not so well informed." Hausherr correctly understood this to be a typo the day before (see his response to it above), but is now using the typo as if it were correct as written. .. Lermanet]

Cordially yours,

Tilman Hausherr

P.S.: What's your petition doing?

P.P.S: Where is the study about this news group?

P.P.P.S: Where is the book you promised you'd dedicate to me?

P.P.P.P.S: Where is the TV coverage that was announced?

P.P.P.P.P.S: Where is the Potthoff court decision that was promised?

P.P.P.P.P.P.S: Where are the foreign translations of your book?

P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S: Where is the answer to your "official inquiry" to the FRG?

P.P.P.P.P.P.P.P.S: Where is the information that's been published mentioned in http://www.renatehartwig.de/artikel.shtml?id=9902019?

This thread continued for several days, with hundreds of posts. On July 1, 2002, OSA's "Sharky" appealed to Hausherr's insistence with common sense.

Hausherr wrote:

Hausherr: And therefore not everyone who has had an indictment issued against them by the State Attorney's office is automatically guilty. Otherwise there would be no exonerations in court.

Sharky: That's right already, but Caberta's case proves that she is guilty.

Hausherr: Guilty of which felony or misdeanor? Which court decided that? Your personal opinion is not good enough.

Corruption and misusing her office. That is why she paid the fat fine, so as not to be officially convicted.

The only thing that surprises me is how corruption is covered up in Hamburg.

A comment from Peter Widmer on July 2, 2002:

Helmut Hullen wrote:

Hausherr: Guilty of which felony or misdeanor? Which court decided that? Your personal opinion is not good enough.

Sharky: Corruption and misusing her office. That is why she paid the fat fine, so as not to be officially convicted.

Hullen: Since she paid the fine, she is now guilty of neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. You don't seem to be particularly familiar with German law. Have you misunderstood the word "crime"?

The legal text for the state attorney's decision is clear:

In other words, in case the court were to have found Caberta guilty (in any case she demonstrated incompetence by accepting a loan from the wrong person at the wrong time), then this would have been thought of as insignificant. There is no public interest in prosecuting (the state attorney, the state prosecutor, has dropped the charges with the consent of the court.) By getting an agreement to drop the case U. Caberta has saved the taxpayers further useless expense :-)

Peter

Sharky responded on July 1, 2002:

Hausherr: Guilty of which felony or misdeanor? Which court decided that? Your personal opinion is not good enough.

Sharky: Corruption and misusing her office. That is why she paid the fat fine, so as not to be officially convicted.

Since she paid the fine, ...

Not so quick, she is still paying it in five installments of 1,500 euro. By paying this, she wants to avoid a conviction. The payment is an acknowledgment of guilt, otherwise she wouldn't have made it.

She could have decided not to pay and let it go to court. She didn't do that because she would rather pay a fat fine.

I would have liked to see it go to trial.

Hausherr later responded later:

RSL wrote:

Sharky: The payment is an acknowledgment of guilt, otherwise she wouldn't have made it. She could have decided not to pay and let it go to court. She didn't do that because she would rather pay a fat fine. I would have liked to see it go to trial.

RSL: Me too. That sounds like something from a Banana Republic, where someone can pay off "politically correct" corruption (because she's in the fight against sects).

*If*. In Germany dropping charges for a fine is an entirely normal legal procedure. Read this once: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StPO/153a.html

Something like that can happen with real big accusations, too. Example: Eberhard Martini. http://www.jura.uos.de/prof/achenbach/wstr/2001/wsna1201.htm#Martini

Furthermore, there was no corruption. As of today nobody can tell me what service was provided in return, the official one.

I would have like to see the state attorney's office fail in a trial, but now that will not happen.

Tilman

How did Caberta get the charges of corruption dropped? Ardent admirers of Graham Berry may want to thank him for his May 30, 2002 article.