Co$ sues Debbie Cook in Texas

[Pooks]

Church of Scientology sues longtime Clearwater leader over New Year's Eve email

By Joe Childs and Thomas C.Tobin, Times Staff Writers
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 07:58 PM



The Church of Scientology has sued its longtime Clearwater leader Debbie Cook after she publicly questioned the church's aggressive fundraising tactics and other practices.

The lawsuit — filed Friday in San Antonio, Texas, where Cook lives — reveals that the church paid Cook and her husband, Wayne Baumgarten, $50,000 each to remain silent about their time on church staff.

moar at:


http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/church-of-scientology-sues-longtime-clearwater-leader-over-new-years-eve/1213102

[SomeGuy]

Church of Scientology sues longtime Clearwater leader over New Year's Eve email

By Joe Childs and Thomas C.Tobin, Times Staff Writers
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 07:58 PM



The Church of Scientology has sued its longtime Clearwater leader Debbie Cook after she publicly questioned the church's aggressive fundraising tactics and other practices.

The lawsuit — filed Friday in San Antonio, Texas, where Cook lives — reveals that the church paid Cook and her husband, Wayne Baumgarten, $50,000 each to remain silent about their time on church staff.

moar at:


http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/church-of-scientology-sues-longtime-clearwater-leader-over-new-years-eve/1213102

It's odd by filing this suit scientology is also breaking it's none disclose.

Interesting article.

[change]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/church-of-scientology-sues-longtime-clearwater-leader-over-new-years-eve/1213102

The lawsuit here:

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2012/PDFs/scientology013112/3143_001.pdf

Her agreement she was coerced to sign here:

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2012/PDFs/scientology013112/3144_001.pdf

[Div6]

FTA:


Arguing that it faced "substantial risk of imminent harm and irreparable injury," the church asked for and received an order temporarily restraining Cook and Baumgarten from saying anything more.

and


Before filing the lawsuit, the church wrote Cook to demand she stop violating the agreement. The lawsuit said Cook responded last Thursday, stating in an email that she would not give up her right to free speech and declaring: "If you sue me, it really doesn't matter ... I have no money to spend on an attorney."


This one needs to go to the mat.....blow away the myth of "binding gag orders".

What kind of "church" that especially purports "When in doubt..communicate" does this?

[Mystic]

. . . .

[Jquepublic]

Church of Scientology sues longtime Clearwater leader over New Year's Eve email

By Joe Childs and Thomas C.Tobin, Times Staff Writers
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 07:58 PM



The Church of Scientology has sued its longtime Clearwater leader Debbie Cook after she publicly questioned the church's aggressive fundraising tactics and other practices.

The lawsuit — filed Friday in San Antonio, Texas, where Cook lives — reveals that the church paid Cook and her husband, Wayne Baumgarten, $50,000 each to remain silent about their time on church staff.

moar at:


http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/church-of-scientology-sues-longtime-clearwater-leader-over-new-years-eve/1213102

Well, saw that coming.

I guess Marty's fundraising campaign was a good thing. :p I find it hard to believe they weren't speaking. I found it rather odd that he and Rinder made a point of stating they were not in touch with Debbie in any way.

I think it's a good thing. She and Wayne signed that document under extreme duress. No way it can be legally binding.

[AnonSunshine]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/church-of-scientology-sues-longtime-clearwater-leader-over-new-years-eve/1213102

Church of Scientology sues longtime Clearwater leader over New Year's Eve email
By Joe Childs and Thomas C.Tobin, Times Staff Writers
Joe ChildsThomas C.TobinTampa Bay Times Posted: Jan 30, 2012 07:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the documents: Church of Scientology lawsuit (PDF)
Debbie Cook's agreement (PDF)
Previous coverage: Read the earlier stories about Debbie Cook's New Year's Eve letter
Featured

The Church of Scientology has sued its longtime Clearwater leader Debbie Cook after she publicly questioned the church's aggressive fundraising tactics and other practices.

The lawsuit — filed Friday in San Antonio, Texas, where Cook lives — reveals that the church paid Cook and her husband, Wayne Baumgarten, $50,000 each to remain silent about their time on church staff.

Cook, 50, worked 17 years as the church's top official in Clearwater, Scientology's worldwide spiritual headquarters. Serving in the post of "captain," she presided over an operation that brought in $1.7 billion for the church during that time.

Cook and Baumgarten each signed non-disclosure agreements as they left the staff in October 2007. All told, Cook had worked in the church's religious order, the Sea Org, for 29 years.

The church alleges in the lawsuit that the couple violated the agreements when Cook circulated a New Year's Eve letter urging Scientologists to work internally to reform the church. The letter went to thousands of church members.

Arguing that it faced "substantial risk of imminent harm and irreparable injury," the church asked for and received an order temporarily restraining Cook and Baumgarten from saying anything more.

In a statement to the Tampa Bay Times, church spokesman Karin Pouw described the payments to the couple as "help," saying each willingly accepted the money as part of a legally binding agreement. "Only with recent violations of that agreement was it necessary for the church to pursue and protect its rights," Pouw said.

The agreements, filed with the lawsuit, provide a rare look at the extraordinary lengths the church goes to to keep its inner workings secret. Among the restrictions on Cook and Baumgarten:

• They waived their First Amendment rights to free speech.

• They can never, "in perpetuity," disclose any information about the church, its staff or former staff.

• They can never publish, attempt to publish or help anyone publish any information about the church in any media, including newspapers, television, radio or the Internet.

• They can never utter a disparaging word about the church, either directly or indirectly.

The couple agreed to stiff penalties for violating the agreement, including a minimum of $100,000 for each disparaging Internet posting, each television broadcast or each newspaper story.

The church alleges in the lawsuit that news of Cook's "disparaging emails" reached more than 24 million people via television and radio shows and newspaper stories, including reports in the Times.

Her letter criticized "extreme" money raising tactics used by church staff and said the church had amassed well over $1 billion in reserves. It questioned the church's strategy of building new churches called "Ideal Orgs" around the world, calling the buildings unnecessarily "posh."

It alleged that the "complex and balanced command structure" put in place by the late Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard no longer existed, and it said Scientology was being run by a single leader, David Miscavige.

The letter also said many Scientologists are reaching the upper levels of spiritual awareness only to be told they must redo lower-level services at great expense.

These practices are against Hubbard's policies, and all members are obligated under those policies to report and correct internal problems, the letter stated.

Pouw did not answer several questions about the agreements signed by Cook and Baumgarten and said the newspaper's inquiry "fits your controversy-laden agenda." She said the Times should be reporting on the 15 "Ideal Orgs" set to open this year, including two recent ribbon cuttings in Hamburg, Germany, and Sacramento, Calif.

Before filing the lawsuit, the church wrote Cook to demand she stop violating the agreement. The lawsuit said Cook responded last Thursday, stating in an email that she would not give up her right to free speech and declaring: "If you sue me, it really doesn't matter ... I have no money to spend on an attorney."

Cook wrote to the Times after her letter was made public saying she lamented that the media had gotten word of her New Year's Eve letter. It was not intended for outside eyes unfamiliar with the church, she wrote. "It was clearly intended as a communication amongst Scientologists."

Joe Childs can be reached at childs@tampabay.com. Thomas C. Tobin can be reached at ttobin@tampabay.com.



Read the documents

Find a copy of the Scientology lawsuit and the agreements signed by Cook and her husband as well as previous coverage at links.tampabay.com.


[Last modified: Jan 30, 2012 08:21 PM]

Tampa Bay Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 Tampa Bay Times

THIS WILL BACKFIRE :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :itstrue: :itstrue: :itstrue: :thewave: :thewave:

[Gadfly]

The Church of Scientology, following the exact policies of L. Ron Turdfart continues to behave in its typical abusive, crush freedom-of-speech manner by heavily blocking the free circulation of TRUTH about Scientology.

From the article:

The agreements, filed with the lawsuit, provide a rare look at the extraordinary lengths the church goes to to keep its inner workings secret. Among the restrictions on Cook and Baumgarten:

• They waived their First Amendment rights to free speech.

• They can never, "in perpetuity," disclose any information about the church, its staff or former staff.

• They can never publish, attempt to publish or help anyone publish any information about the church in any media, including newspapers, television, radio or the Internet.

• They can never utter a disparaging word about the church, either directly or indirectly.

These sort of gag agreements are Standard Operatng Procedure for the Church of Scientology in the constant attempt to silence the TRUTH about their absurdly nasty activities and strong-armed behaviors.

God, someday . . . . someday they will get the Karmic payback they so richly deserve. :happydance:

Never forget that the same dickhead who wrote the policies that bring about the above actions (Hubbard) also wrote the fluff PR piece, The Code of Scientologist, where it says, "To work for freedom of speech in the world". Not that they have EVER actually done THAT in any sphere in which they were involved! :no:

What is Law of Commotion Hoaxie, "for each and every datum in Scientology there is an equal and opppsite datum . . . "?

Scientology - where intentional contradictions take their most gruesome form.

[Gadfly]

What kind of "church" that especially purports "When in doubt..communicate" does this?

Hubbard's kind! :yes:

[freethinker]

The church makes you sign a paper that says you give up a right? You cannot be made to give up a right.

Can they make you sign a paper to give up your life?

[Jquepublic]

The church makes you sign a paper that says you give up a right? You cannot be made to give up a right.

Can they make you sign a paper to give up your life?

Yep. It's called a staff contract! :p

[Jquepublic]

My favorite part:

Arguing that it faced "substantial risk of imminent harm and irreparable injury," the church asked for and received an order temporarily restraining Cook and Baumgarten from saying anything more.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[freethinker]

They're not legal, ask a lawyer.
Yep. It's called a staff contract! :p

[Gadfly]

Arguing that it faced "substantial risk of imminent harm and irreparable injury," the church asked for and received an order temporarily restraining Cook and Baumgarten from saying anything more.

Oh boy, I sure hope that this "substantial risk of imminent harm and irreparable injury" manifests in spades!

What would happen if 15 or 20 gagged ex-members all got together, got and shared a REALLY GOOD LAW FIRM, and began TALKING AND TALKING about everything they aren't supposed to. Spreading it everywhere, on EVERY media outlet, giving interviews, and making a great deal of NOISE. While also really beating the drum about how the C of S is so amazingly manipulative and oppressive. The public would have a field day with such truth about this joke of a Church.

[Mark A. Baker]

Church of Scientology sues longtime Clearwater leader over New Year's Eve email

By Joe Childs and Thomas C.Tobin, Times Staff Writers
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 07:58 PM



The Church of Scientology has sued its longtime Clearwater leader Debbie Cook after she publicly questioned the church's aggressive fundraising tactics and other practices.

The lawsuit — filed Friday in San Antonio, Texas, where Cook lives — reveals that the church paid Cook and her husband, Wayne Baumgarten, $50,000 each to remain silent about their time on church staff.

moar at:


http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/church-of-scientology-sues-longtime-clearwater-leader-over-new-years-eve/1213102

The use of litigation as a tool of harassment & intimidation is standard admin tech for the church.


Mark A. Baker

[Zhent]

Ms Cook's views represent a small ignorant and unenlightened view of the world today.



...Arguing that it faced "substantial risk of imminent harm and irreparable injury,"

...

The church alleges in the lawsuit that news of Cook's "disparaging emails" reached more than 24 million people via television and radio shows and newspaper stories, including reports in the Times.

LOLOLOLOL. I love it when they have to backpeddle in lawsuits and admit the SPs are winning.

[Jquepublic]

Debbie has set up her own website (http://www.debbiecookbaumgarten.com/). There is a button there for donations. No, I am not telling you or asking you to donate. I am just relaying a fact.

Just so we're clear. :p

[chuckbeatty]

The biggest hypocrisy is that it's a High Crime for one Scientologist to sue another Scientologist. Debbie Cook is a Scientologist, any scholar would call her one. Yet official Scientology violates its own rules and sues her!

[Mick Wenlock]

Well, saw that coming.

I guess Marty's fundraising campaign was a good thing. :p I find it hard to believe they weren't speaking. I found it rather odd that he and Rinder made a point of stating they were not in touch with Debbie in any way.

I think it's a good thing. She and Wayne signed that document under extreme duress. No way it can be legally binding.

Oh I think you may find that the fact that they accepted $50,000 apiece for signing will mitigate against any finding of "extreme duress". They could have refused to accept the money and refused to sign.

They chose to take the money.

Most SO members got nothing at all when they left.

Really, I have no sympathy for Debbie at all.

[Jquepublic]

Oh I think you may find that the fact that they accepted $50,000 apiece for signing will mitigate against any finding of "extreme duress". They could have refused to accept the money and refused to sign.

They chose to take the money.

Most SO members got nothing at all when they left.

Really, I have no sympathy for Debbie at all.

I think it'll be thrown out. I think she'll get the chance to talk and I think she's got a lot to say. She could settle, but if she really is on a Holy Crusade to save her church the chances of that are slim to none.

I say if she's got the rocks with which to break the glass then hats off to her! It's got nothing to do with sympathy.

[GreyWolf]

Time for Marty to put up or shut up.

[Free to shine]

Marty's on the ball...no time to waste.


Flag Services Org Inc v. Debbie Cook

David Miscavige has ordered Flag Service Organization to sue Debbie Cook and Wayne Baumgarten in order hide his own crimes. The suit is summed up competently in a story just released by the Tampa Times, Flag Service Org Inc v Debbie Cook.

I predict the litigation will make clear that the sole intent of suing Debbie is to stifle the revelation of just how David Miscavige authored and dictated compliance to every off-policy action protested in Debbie’s 1 January email.

Miscavige had virtually all of the OSA (Office of Special Affairs, dirty tricks and propaganda arm of Corporate Scientology) Network working feverishly for the first 26 days of January to destroy Debbie’s and Wayne’s business and to deplete their finances so that he would have an easy, broke target.

There is an evidentiary hearing set for Thursday 9 February 2012 at 9 a.m. in the Bexar County 150th District Court in San Antonio Texas. At the hearing Scientology Inc will be attempting to make the restraining order, obtained with no notice to the defendants, valid until the end of trial on the merits.

I have it on good authority that Debbie and Wayne are not backing down to the Scientology Inc muzzling machine.

They have established a legal defense fund of their own at Debbie’s personal website – Debbie Cook Baumgarten, see top right column of home page.

All donations made at this blog will be transfered to Debbie’s defense fund. All future donations to the defense of Wayne and Debbie should be made directly to Debbie’s site.

Thank you to all who donated in advance here. I believe it is doubtful that this matter would have made it to a full, public airing absent the contributions that you all made in advance. http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/

[elwood]

Time for Marty to put up or shut up.

He says all donations collected at his blog will be transferred to her defense fund.

[chuckbeatty]

Debbie has set up her own website (http://www.debbiecookbaumgarten.com/). There is a button there for donations. No, I am not telling you or asking you to donate. I am just relaying a fact.

Just so we're clear. :p


thanks, just donated.

I've known Debbie since when she came to Flag and worked in the CMO Clearwater.

She, in my opinion, was a success due to her being tech trained, she was, if I recall, in the CMO CW Crackerjack auditor unit, before her stint in the FSO as case cracker unit.

Even though I don't believe in the tech, what the case crackers did was assess a lot of the correction lists.

Someday, sidenote, someone will review the C/S 53, and the Green Form, and the L4BR and other correction lists, for what the mean, since those lists do have some degree of undoing a lot of their own brainwashing, but to fully undo the brainwashing you gotta get re-educated normal citizen wise by reading and learning totally outside the whole Hubbard system.

But anyone who's been, in my opinion, a "good" exec over the years, is at least knowledgeable about what "wrong indications" do to people. And an auditor who's done a lot of correction lists, and corrected people's "out lists" and "out list phenomenon", a whole LOT of Hubbard's BS and the movement members abuse to one another is all basically "out list" and 'wrong indications" (in otherwords forcing people to believe something they goddamn DON'T think is true, and that forcing and mislabelling and scapegoating and abuse and hazing and BS is all just a whole shitload of "wrong indications").

And someone at least who's sat down and helped their fellow Scientology shed a bunch of that "wrong indications" BS that one gets dumped with, in one's Scientologist life, at least gives a more empathetic drone within that Scientology staff member bee colony.

Debbie was at least sensitive, in my opinion, to people's "cases", even if limited to what I've listed in the "case cracker's" repertoire, those Hubbard "correction lists" to fix up fucked up and messed up "cases."

Flag's Case Cracking HGC, is just where supposedly, the best of the therapist/auditors did this "case" sort out of the fucked up "cases" of people coming from wherever they came from, in the world.

The Case Cracking HGC was supposed to just do excellent "metering" using the Hubbard polygraphy emeter, and find the correct "charge" and patch up these fucked up "cases" who had the bucks to come to Flag/Clearwater and get their cases cleaned up.

It's all it's own whole caccon of BS, but within that cacoon, Debbie was a pretty good case cracker.

Hubbard wanted his top execs to be trained in the tech, and be able to do it.

Miscavige is the anti-thesis of someone you'd like to have give you any kind of compassionate therapy, so he's the epitome of who NOT have lead a therapy/exorcism movement, where the therapists/exorcists are supposed to be compassionate listeners and guiders.

[Div6]

From the Creed of the "Church":

-That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.

LOL - wut?

inalienable - incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>

Can you say "check mate"?

[Panda Termint]

He says all donations collected at his blog will be transferred to her defense fund.

And that's a good thing, IMO.

On another note; Perhaps this will end up being the watershed moment which sees a precedent set as regards the unconstitutional nature CofS' gag orders. I certainly hope so.

In any event, someone is in for a world of hurt and I'm betting it ain't the Baumgartens. Here we go!

[Feral]

Oh I think you may find that the fact that they accepted $50,000 apiece for signing will mitigate against any finding of "extreme duress". They could have refused to accept the money and refused to sign.

They chose to take the money.

Most SO members got nothing at all when they left.

Really, I have no sympathy for Debbie at all.

You're a hard man Mick.

I think she's doing the right thing and may not even be in technical breech of her contract, she told no part of her story which will undoubtedly come out should this proceed.

I also feel all SO members are entitled to a substantial payout.

[chuckbeatty]

What's so wrong about this, is they are suing.

Suing a fellow Scientologist is a High Crime, so they are violating their own rules!

I bet this is Hubbard's fault.

Sounds like an LRH fuckup!

[chuckbeatty]

Suggested Protest sign:

"Suing Debbie Cook is suing a fellow Scientologist and it's OFF POLICY you dingbats!"

[Jquepublic]

What's so wrong about this, is they are suing.

Suing a fellow Scientologist is a High Crime, so they are violating their own rules!

I bet this is Hubbard's fault.

Sounds like an LRH fuckup!

I think it's delighful!! "We want Debbie Cook to shut up so we're going to take her to court and make her talk about it at length before a judge."

:lol::lol::lol:

[Gadfly]

What's so wrong about this, is they are suing.

Suing a fellow Scientologist is a High Crime, so they are violating their own rules!

I bet this is Hubbard's fault.

Sounds like an LRH fuckup!

Ah, but only the Church of Scientology can say who is a REAL SCIENTOLOGIST! :duh:

[Lermanet_com]

Church of Scientology sues longtime Clearwater leader over New Year's Eve email

By Joe Childs and Thomas C.Tobin, Times Staff Writers
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 07:58 PM

The Church of Scientology has sued its longtime Clearwater leader Debbie Cook after she publicly questioned the church's aggressive fundraising tactics and other practices.

The lawsuit — filed Friday in San Antonio, Texas, where Cook lives — reveals that the church paid Cook and her husband, Wayne Baumgarten, $50,000 each to remain silent about their time on church staff.

moar at:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/church-of-scientology-sues-longtime-clearwater-leader-over-new-years-eve/1213102

Dell Libreach and maybe Dandar were sued in Texas also, I think for Dandar violating an signed agreement that he made with Scientology before Bob was involved. The agreement was not to ever try to depose Herr dwarf in exchange for not screwing the estate, like they did Wollershiem, by not paying any future judgement and moving the money around their shell corporations. for 17 years..

As I recall, that ruling and judgement was tossed out of court in Florida.

I wonder if this is the same judge.... or court.. they must have a friend there, and likely Scn didn't expect anyone who remembered to mention it in this thread... admittedly the two actions may not be related, come to think of it Dell was from Texas...oh nevermind...

Arnie Lerma

[Lure Rob & Hyde]

FTA:



and




This one needs to go to the mat.....blow away the myth of "binding gag orders".

What kind of "church" that especially purports "When in doubt..communicate" does this?


What Church?? They have just emphaticly stated:
"We are A Cult and can't stand the notion of freedom of speech.
Further anyone invloved with us gives up his Civil Rights. Fuck the Consitution cause we rule over the courts, IRS and all of the land" end of presumed quote
Sounds quite Hubbardish to me !!:no:

[Petey C]

It's intriguing that the Agreement stipulated they could be fined $100K for each breach, and the CoS is going for damages of $300K, indicating three breaches. This is despite their claim that they potentially will lose much more than that as the media about Debbie's email reached 28 million people, from memory. I suppose this means that Debbie and Wayne either breached the Agreement three times, or CoS thinks only $300K's worth of services will have been lost from those 28 million people. Huh? But then again, I never was good at maths.

[HelluvaHoax!]

What is Law of Commotion Hoaxie, "for each and every datum in Scientology there is an equal and opppsite datum . . . "?

Newton's Law of Motion: For every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.

Hubbard's Law of Commotion: For every policy, code, creed & piece of tech there is always an equal and opposite policy, code, creed & piece of tech.


Example:


(Per the Creed of the Church of Scientology) "We of the church believe that that all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others."

(Per HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965, we of the church also believe that it is a Suppressive Act and a High Crime punishable by Fair Game to do any of the following) "Such Suppressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology Organizations; public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened; proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the Suppression of Scientology; pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology; testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it; reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology; bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist including the nonpayment of bills or failure to refund without first calling the matter to the attention of the Chairman at Saint Hill and receiving a reply; demanding the return of any or all fees paid for standard training or processing actually received or received in part and still available but undelivered only because of departure of the person demanding (the fees must be refunded but this Policy Letter applies); writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press; testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public; continued membership in a divergent group; continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO; failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts; being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons; organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology; organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices, still calling it Scientology or calling it something else; calling meetings of staffs or field auditors or the public to deliver Scientology into the hands of unauthorized persons or [persons] who will suppress it or alter it or who have no reputation for following standard lines and procedures; infiltrating a Scientology group or organization or staff to stir up discontent or protest at the instigation of hostile forces; 1st degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings; mutiny; seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or “to save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology”; engaging in malicious rumour mongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology or to “safeguard” a position; delivering up the person of a Scientologist without defense or protest to the demands of civil or criminal law; falsifying records that then imperil the liberty or safety of a Scientologist; knowingly giving false testimony to imperil a Scientologist; receiving money, favours or encouragement to suppress Scientology or Scientologists; sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology such as a student, a preclear, a ward or a patient; blackmail of Scientologists or Scientology organizations threatened or accomplished – in which case the crime being used for blackmail purposes becomes fully outside the reach of Ethics and is absolved by the fact of blackmail unless repeated."


In other words. . .



Dear Debbie,

You have the inalienable right to say or publish anything you want.

We have the inalienable right to destroy you for having done so.

ML,

Ron & Dave and All Your Scientology Friends

[Lermanet_com]

The church makes you sign a paper that says you give up a right? You cannot be made to give up a right.

Can they make you sign a paper to give up your life?

Depends on the jurisdiction it seems...

See http://www.lermanet.com/silence.htm (see bottom of page)

"South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements

Read the NY Times article: South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements By ADAM LIPTAK. Adam Liptak's article in the New York Times quoting Chief Judge Joseph Anderson of the South Carolina Federal Judicial District saying about civil gag agreements that:

"It meant that secrecy was something bought and sold right under a judge's nose." "

Corporations consider the price of gag agreements just the cost of doing business in America, $cn included...


“Secrecy is the keystone to all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy and censorship. When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, “This you may not read, this you must not know,” the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
— Robert A. Heinlein

it is important to note that no gag agreement can legally be used to conceal evidence of fraud or criminal conduct... however you may still have to pay a lawyer to thread that needle for you.

[Lamb]

He says all donations collected at his blog will be transferred to her defense fund.

yea, we'll see.

[jenni with an eye]

Wow, a measly $50,000.00 for 29 years hard service :omg:
That equates to $1724.14 per annum. Lousy payout but better than the majority get when they leave the s.o.

Just a thought...having had a quick peek at the agreement, I saw it as a gag to stop Debbie from talking about what happened
when they (Debbie & Wayne) were in the s.o.

The impression I got from Debbie's email (1/1/12) was she was talking about what is happening in the cofs today...
not so much about what was happening when she was in. :coolwink: :whistling:

Either way, the cofs filing suit is a major footbullet. :footbullet:

If the cofs is really as good as it claims to be then why is it so scared
for people to tell the truth of their experiences both past & present.

(N.B. I don't actually need an answer to that one cause I know :scnsucks::scnsucks::scnsucks:)

[Lermanet_com]

Wow, a measly $50,000.00 for 29 years hard service :omg:
That equates to $1724.14 per annum. Lousy payout but better than the majority get when they leave the s.o.

Just a thought...having had a quick peek at the agreement, I saw it as a gag to stop Debbie from talking about what happened
when they (Debbie & Wayne) were in the s.o.

The impression I got from Debbie's email (1/1/12) was she was talking about what is happening in the cofs today...
not so much about what was happening when she was in. :coolwink: :whistling:

Either way, the cofs filing suit is a major footbullet. :footbullet:

If the cofs is really as good as it claims to be then why is it so scared
for people to tell the truth of their experiences both past & present.

(N.B. I don't actually need an answer to that one cause I know :scnsucks::scnsucks::scnsucks:)

It generates expenses for the target, US federal judge Leonie Brinkema opined in RTC vs Lerma, quoting Hubbard's own directives:

28 Nov 1995 Memorandum Opinion [ Full Text (http://www.lermanet.com/scientologylegal/brinkema-washpost.txt)] - Judge Leonie Brinkema

"On the first issue, the Court finds that the motivation of plaintiff in filing this lawsuit against the Post is reprehensible. Although the RTC brought the complaint under traditional secular concepts of copyright and trade secret law, it has become clear that a much broader motivation prevailed--the stifling of crticism and dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents. L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, has been quoted as looking upon law as a tool to

[h]arass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harrass and enough harrassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly. "

Bold emphasis mine...

also from29 November 1995 - Memorandum Opinion [ Full Text ]- Judge Leonie Brinkema

"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics. "

They want to silence a critic of scientology.

[Smurf]

I guess Marty's fundraising campaign was a good thing. :p I find it hard to believe they weren't speaking. I found it rather odd that he and Rinder made a point of stating they were not in touch with Debbie in any way.

I think it's a good thing. She and Wayne signed that document under extreme duress. No way it can be legally binding.

It probably is legally binding, insofar as contract law is concerned, and I have no doubt that the court will agree. You only have to Google search Gerry Armstrong and see what happened when he violated his gag agreement after the cult paid him $800,000.

Regardless of every attempt by Gerry to defend himself, the court acknowledged case law when it came to signing contracts. Wayne & Debbie sign an agreement in return for a combined $100,000 in hush money. The court will also take into account their ages and the fact that both have years of business experience where they engaged in contracts, and had to have some foresight into the implications of signing a contract.

Courts don't give much weight to defendants claiming they signed agreements "under duress" when there's alot of money involved. The Texas court may not slap any sanctions on Debbie & Wayne other than a permanent injunction sustaining the contract they signed, but we'll have to wait & see.

[Smurf]

Depends on the jurisdiction it seems.

Case Number: 2012CI01272
Business/Last Name: WAYNE BAUMGARTEN
Litigant Type: DEFENDANT
Style: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION INC vs DEBRA J BAUMGARTEN ET AL
Court: 150
Date Filed: 01/27/2012
Docket Type: OTHER CONTRACT
Case Status: PENDING

Case Number: 2012CI01272
Business/Last Name: DEBRA COOK BAUMGARTEN aka DEBRA J BAUMGARTEN
Litigant Type: DEFENDANT
Style: CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION INC vs DEBRA J BAUMGARTEN ET AL
Court: 150
Date Filed: 01/27/2012
Docket Type: OTHER CONTRACT
Case Status: PENDING

https://apps.bexar.org/dklitsearch/search.aspx

[scooter]

I was quietly retiring from activism until 20 minutes ago - I had backed off from doing anything than being a dad and a husband.:angry:

Cult has managed to piss me off again mightily with this - but I guess that's inevitable when you have a dwarf with the emotional age of 4 running a multi-billion scam-cult.:grouch:

I'm sure it's had the same effect on others too - way to go, Davey Boy:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap :

I hope You burn in Hell, you cancerous little gnome.:yes:

Oh - and fuck you too, OSA.

[Ogsonofgroo]

I think it's delighful!! "We want Debbie Cook to shut up so we're going to take her to court and make her talk about it at length before a judge."

:lol::lol::lol:

YAAAAAARRRRRRRR!

[CarmeloOrchards]

I was quietly retiring from activism until 20 minutes ago - I had backed off from doing anything than being a dad and a husband.:angry:

Cult has managed to piss me off again mightily with this - but I guess that's inevitable when you have a dwarf with the emotional age of 4 running a multi-billion scam-cult.:grouch:

I'm sure it's had the same effect on others too - way to go, Davey Boy:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap :

I hope You burn in Hell, you cancerous little gnome.:yes:

Oh - and fuck you too, OSA.

Tell us how you really feel.

[oneonewasaracecar]

...church spokesman Karin Pouw...Tommy is definitely in the hole.

I see two bad effects for the church on this
1) People in Scientology who agree with her might react to her being sued.
2) Anything she says in court is public record.

If she raises the allegation that Shelley Miscavige is missing, the court may not be able to ignore that.

[Ogsonofgroo]

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090825051734/uncyclopedia/images/b/b6/Fail_cat.jpg

Just another paper-cut of the 10,000 that is the karma of David Miscavige and his cult of greed.
http://sneezl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/epic-fail.jpg

[SchwimmelPuckel]

I think it's delighful!! "We want Debbie Cook to shut up so we're going to take her to court and make her talk about it at length before a judge."

:lol::lol::lol:Harh! - An epic footbullet, and what's more: They should have learned by now.

And if Mr.Rathbun's legal defence fund does help Debbie, I'm gonna have to acknowledge him for doing something good.. I won't like it and I will have to scream some generalities out the window, but there it is..

:yes:

[Smurf]

Attorney Scott Pilutik makes some interesting points on the lawsuit:

"..Cook and Baumgarten also have possible affirmative defenses that could make this case truly fascinating. Cook's e-mail is, at heart, a sincere religious argument. She's genuinely concerned about the direction of Scientology and strongly suggests that the current management is not adhering to Hubbard's doctrine, quoting him liberally throughout.

A legitimate question therefore exists, I think, as to whether this isn't a contract dispute at all, but rather a religious dispute, which the Court could not resolve without violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment (i.e., courts are prohibited from deciding religious disputes lest they become impermissibly entangled in religious disputes), or without violating Cook and Baumgarten's First Amendment free exercise rights.

If the Court is to find for Scientology over Cook/Baumgarten, it must not appear to be taking sides in a religious dispute, and that doesn't appear to be so easy a task."

The case will weigh heavily on Debbie & Wayne's intent for sending the email.. I suspect their argument will be that their actions did not violate the NDA. Regardless of the decision handed down in this case, it's a safe bet it will make its way to the appellate courts.

[Infinite]

..



"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly"

L Ron Hubbard

[kilter]

i love this bit in the saga,debbie's got DM in the bull pit.he thinks he can fight this in public and use stand over tactics.debbies webpage is asking for donations and she will get the funds from wealthy scios who back her cause.believe me she will get heaps of cashflow from peole who want her to win,and the longer it stays in the courts she draws out the fight....rope a dope and DM fell for it.mainstream media picked up her email all around the world.they will be on the steps waiting for this one also.if she goes in court wearing any medals that she got proudly showcasing her achievments,the media will go nuts..!or with a plague of ron or any token gestures regarding ron the media will have a field day...if she comes with supporters and they are seen to support her then this might be the most bizzare thing in cos history.....

[Infinite]

i love this bit in the saga,debbie's got DM in the bull pit.he thinks he can fight this in public and use stand over tactics.debbies webpage is asking for donations and she will get the funds from wealthy scios who back her cause.believe me she will get heaps of cashflow from peole who want her to win,and the longer it stays in the courts she draws out the fight....rope a dope and DM fell for it.mainstream media picked up her email all around the world.they will be on the steps waiting for this one also.if she goes in court wearing any medals that she got proudly showcasing her achievments,the media will go nuts..!or with a plague of ron or any token gestures regarding ron the media will have a field day...if she comes with supporters and they are seen to support her then this might be the most bizzare thing in cos history.....

Bizarre? Nah. Bizarre is grown adults hypnotised into duplicating Xenu. A court case designed to silence its critics is pretty much SOP for Scientology.

[Helena Handbasket]

The biggest hypocrisy is that it's a High Crime for one Scientologist to sue another Scientologist. Debbie Cook is a Scientologist, any scholar would call her one. Yet official Scientology violates its own rules and sues her!
Yeah, but she's not being sued by a "scientologist". She's being sued by "scientology"! What applies to the members is apparently doesn't apply to the organisation.

Helena

[Lulu Belle]

Church of Scientology sues longtime Clearwater leader over New Year's Eve email

By Joe Childs and Thomas C.Tobin, Times Staff Writers
Posted: Jan 30, 2012 07:58 PM



The Church of Scientology has sued its longtime Clearwater leader Debbie Cook after she publicly questioned the church's aggressive fundraising tactics and other practices.

The lawsuit — filed Friday in San Antonio, Texas, where Cook lives — reveals that the church paid Cook and her husband, Wayne Baumgarten, $50,000 each to remain silent about their time on church staff.

moar at:


http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/church-of-scientology-sues-longtime-clearwater-leader-over-new-years-eve/1213102

The agreements they signed, which were filed with the lawsuit, provide a rare look at the church's extraordinary efforts to keep secret its inner workings. Among the restrictions on Cook and Baumgarten:
• They waived their First Amendment rights to free speech.
• They can never, "in perpetuity," disclose any information about the church, its staff or former staff.
• They can never publish, attempt to publish or help anyone publish any information about the church in any media, including newspapers, television, radio or the Internet.
• They can never utter a disparaging word about the church, either directly or indirectly.


Oh, the ACLU is gonna LOVE this. :biggrin:


Honestly, this whole lawsuit is an incredibly stupid thing for COS to try to pull.

First of all, besides the obvious issues with the non-disclosure agreement, as the article says, the fact that this allows the terms of the non-disclosure to be broadcast in the press will do as much damage as Cook's email itself.

Secondly, it's not like anything in her email was any kind of secret. Anyone with an internet connection who could type the word "Scientology" into Google could find out the same information in around five minutes.

Third of all, there's the little issue with the fact that everything she said in her email was true. And by hitting her with a lawsuit, the whole thing becomes news AGAIN and the content of the email will be broadcast and rebroadcast again and again....

[Jump]

Third of all, there's the little issue with the fact that everything she said in her email was true. And by hitting her with a lawsuit, the whole thing becomes news AGAIN and the content of the email will be broadcast and rebroadcast again and again....

Did somebody say 'Streisand Effect' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) ?

This is going to challenge the world popcorn supply.

:drama:

[La La Lou Lou]

Bye Bye Cruel Church!

You have admitted that what she says is right.

You admitted that you paid for her and the gorgeous Wayne to shut up.

You dug your own grave, (I'm sending out for pop corn now).

I also see the true point of the fire fights on this board.

OSA prepare for a right public roggering!

[Lulu Belle]

Did somebody say 'Streisand Effect' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) ?

This is going to challenge the world popcorn supply.

:drama:

Exactly.

By the way, it appears Marty was right. COS was planning on suing her. I would have to assume he had prior knowledge of this.

I'm not sure what the implications are: that Marty and Debbie really are in communication? That Marty has some kind of an inside track on things the church is planning to do?

[Mick Wenlock]

You're a hard man Mick.

I think she's doing the right thing and may not even be in technical breech of her contract, she told no part of her story which will undoubtedly come out should this proceed.

I also feel all SO members are entitled to a substantial payout.

Well yeah Kev, in a way I am.

You and I - and many others on this board - ought to know that breach of contract is not really the issue. The cofs is not going for money here, Miscavige is going all out to scare the crap put of anyone else and he probably has a pretty clear cut case. The CofS isn't out to win money, it is just out to ruin Debbie. Now the money donated to her defense fund is OK but it is not going to come anywhere near the retainer she is going to have to pay and, the expenses that they are going to put her through.

I lack sympathy for her because she, for 17 years or more felt no compunction about throwing good people to the kerb during her tenure as CO FSO. People that were kicked out without a dime to their name and whose lives were stunted if not ruined and who lost family over it.

That she was paid off handsomely for her silence - WITH HER AGREEMENT - and then proceeded to make a happy little living off the same scientologists she had been happily ripping off before and you think I am being hard?

Sorry Kev - I am hard on people I think are being given a free pass when they are being excused for the grotesque things they did merely because they can now say titillating things about how bad it all was.

I have watched as Marty was busy doing the crocodile tears for Ortega about Annie, when he had dragged her back to the camp and then he and Rinder were part of the organization that kept her there,

I am really tired of watching all the swooning that happens because one more exploiter has come out and said something bad about Miscavige.

Fuck 'em, to be honest.

[Kookaburra]

The agreements they signed, which were filed with the lawsuit, provide a rare look at the church's extraordinary efforts to keep secret its inner workings. Among the restrictions on Cook and Baumgarten:
• They waived their First Amendment rights to free speech.
• They can never, "in perpetuity," disclose any information about the church, its staff or former staff.
• They can never publish, attempt to publish or help anyone publish any information about the church in any media, including newspapers, television, radio or the Internet.
• They can never utter a disparaging word about the church, either directly or indirectly.


Oh, the ACLU is gonna LOVE this. :biggrin:


Honestly, this whole lawsuit is an incredibly stupid thing for COS to try to pull.

First of all, besides the obvious issues with the non-disclosure agreement, as the article says, the fact that this allows the terms of the non-disclosure to be broadcast in the press will do as much damage as Cook's email itself.

Secondly, it's not like anything in her email was any kind of secret. Anyone with an internet connection who could type the word "Scientology" into Google could find out the same information in around five minutes.

Third of all, there's the little issue with the fact that everything she said in her email was true. And by hitting her with a lawsuit, the whole thing becomes news AGAIN and the content of the email will be broadcast and rebroadcast again and again....

Well, I don't think anyone ever accused the CoS of being fast learners. :melodramatic:

Maybe Hubbard should have given OSA some tech on deductive reasoning. But that was not to be......:whistling:

[Mick Wenlock]

The agreements they signed, which were filed with the lawsuit, provide a rare look at the church's extraordinary efforts to keep secret its inner workings. Among the restrictions on Cook and Baumgarten:
• They waived their First Amendment rights to free speech.
• They can never, "in perpetuity," disclose any information about the church, its staff or former staff.
• They can never publish, attempt to publish or help anyone publish any information about the church in any media, including newspapers, television, radio or the Internet.
• They can never utter a disparaging word about the church, either directly or indirectly.


Oh, the ACLU is gonna LOVE this. :biggrin:


Honestly, this whole lawsuit is an incredibly stupid thing for COS to try to pull.

First of all, besides the obvious issues with the non-disclosure agreement, as the article says, the fact that this allows the terms of the non-disclosure to be broadcast in the press will do as much damage as Cook's email itself.

Secondly, it's not like anything in her email was any kind of secret. Anyone with an internet connection who could type the word "Scientology" into Google could find out the same information in around five minutes.

Third of all, there's the little issue with the fact that everything she said in her email was true. And by hitting her with a lawsuit, the whole thing becomes news AGAIN and the content of the email will be broadcast and rebroadcast again and again....


well I guarantee you that the aclu will not touch this with a ten foot barge pole.

Two people signed a contract for substantial money. They were not forced to sign and they gained from doing it.

As for the rest of it - seriously lulu - do you think that Miscavige cares about what will be said? The email and its contents were already spread around and can and will be re-quoted.

Miscavige is, IMHO, merely setting out to let anyone else know - Rathbun and Rinder spring to mind - that there are going to be very painful consequences.

Which reminds me - has anyone ever asked Rathbun and Rinder how much they were paid? (if anything)

[Lulu Belle]

As for the rest of it - seriously lulu - do you think that Miscavige cares about what will be said?

I actually don't know.

From the things I've read about him, he surrounds himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear. Whether or not he's past the point of caring what is said about him...well, you would think he would be by now.

But considering the raging narcissism...

To be honest, this whole thing is a little confusing to me. What did Debbie Cook think was going to happen when she sent that thing? Did she really not think the church would come after her? Did she know it the whole time? Did the Marty Defense Fund happen with or without her agreement and cooperation? Are her and Marty working together or not? Does she now consider herself an "Indie"?

I don't know.

Like Jump said, time for popcorn....

http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv344/rizzlet_clothing/Popcorn_nommer.gif

[ClearEyed]

Oh I think you may find that the fact that they accepted $50,000 apiece for signing will mitigate against any finding of "extreme duress". They could have refused to accept the money and refused to sign.

They chose to take the money.

Most SO members got nothing at all when they left.

Really, I have no sympathy for Debbie at all.

Thank you Mick. I know that when Debbie joined the SO she was in CMO CW receiving higher pay, better berthing conditions, much better food and clothing, and all around routinely better treatment than most crew in all the other orgs in CW. It just goes to follow that she now deserves much higher "severance" pay. I also don't have much sympathy for her, and wonder that she didn't hold out for more.

I can't imagine a non-disclosure agreement like this is can be seen as valid by any court. It is not the same as a non-disclosure between employer and employee when SO members are completely dependent upon the C of S for every single facet of their lives. And it's already been ruled in many court venues that a contract requiring a citizen to sign away their constitutional rights is invalid.

I don't know what sort of threats were made to get her to sign it. It could have been detainment in the RPF (false imprisonment), the measely $500 (or nothing) that most departing SO members received, or threats of declaration and banishment from the bridge. Any or all of the above. The lawsuit means it can all come out, and leaves the church open for further actions. $300K is not a lot of money to seek for "irrepairable damages" to a multi-million dollar operation. Makes me think that DM may have a soft spot for Debbie.

[Free to shine]

The Village Voice:


But could such a gag order really prevent an American from following her conscience and exercising her Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of religious freedom? We're going to find out, and Scientology, normally shy about press, could get much more exposure than it's had in a while.

For some time, we've been hearing from our sources that Scientology had stepped up its use of gag orders with former members, sending out teams from its intelligence wing, the Office of Special Affairs, with offers of payment if disaffected parishioners would promise not to criticize the church. As Janet Reitman explained in her excellent history of the church, last year's Inside Scientology, there's been a significant drain of longtime members and high-ranking executives from the church in recent years which Reitman characterized as an "Exodus." Ex-Scientologists have been telling us that the church has been dealing with this drain of the disaffected by offering many of those people cash payments if they will keep quiet about their experiences in Scientology.

Two high-ranking former executives, Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder, had told us that they helped develop those gag orders, and that they were designed to be draconian in their terms and intimidating in their effect. Rinder had even told us in recent days that he was going to search through his personal records to see if he had a sample agreement to show us.

But now we have the real thing.

Full article HERE (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/scientology_sues_debbie_cook.php)


Some comments:


Sid
Hmmm, interesting to see the kind of money that Scientology is willing to dish out to those who leave senior staff positions in order to stop them from speaking out about the abuses they have witnessed. Hey Scientology lurker - that's one of the things your donations buy!

Ironically, the problem is that the letter was actually not critical enough. Debbie Cook should have been much more forthright with her letter.... the church would not be suing her now if she had told the story about her being forced to stand with the "Lesbian" sign around her neck. Or if she had written about the violence she witnessed David Miscavige carry out. The church does not sue when there's any danger of CoB being called to the stand.

I'm disappointed to hear that former execs are taking these bribes to stop them from speaking out, and I suspect Debbie Cook regrets signing also. I really hope she wins this case - it could almost turn out to be a test-case I guess - there could be plenty of exes watching to see how it pans out, before they speak out.



Markfisher57
These agreements are so obviously one sided against the person signing them. For instance there is no fines of punishments against Scientology if they do anything to disparage Cook or her husband. They have no recourse.

I also find it interesting that Scientology considers the auditing,ethics and personnel files so important that those sections of the agreements are ALL IN CAPITAL LETTERS!! That is where every personal secret a Scientologist has ever uttered to a Counselor in confidence is stored along with all other communications from senior executives and other people regarding the person. Funny how Cook and her husband and anyone else are not allowed to request anything from these files, when Scientology will readily use anything in those files they want to try and discredit the person. These files are supposed to be confidential but Scientology uses them as weapons.

I am glad that I never ever was presented with such an agreement and would never have signed anything like this no matter what the monetary sum offered.

Giving up your freedom in any respect is not worth all the money in the world. You then become a slave and a prisoner and continue under the effect of this rotton organization.

[TG1]

What's CoS's legal basis for suing Wayne Baumgarten? What's his alleged crime?

[Free to shine]

Which reminds me - has anyone ever asked Rathbun and Rinder how much they were paid? (if anything)

Found this in the Tampa Bay article. And didn't the Armstrong contract have similar financial penalties?


But Rinder said he never saw a church contract include the financial penalties that Cook's does.

"Now it's being used to shut up people who were in the Sea Org and were directly involved with David Miscavige and were aware of actions he was engaged in and the actions of the church,'' Rinder alleged.

The church routinely paid $500 severance to resigning Sea Org members, many of whom also signed nondisclosure agreements, Rinder said. The church paid him $5,000, he said.

[Smilla]

I expect that she took legal advice before she sent out the initial email, and is not too worried about the Cult taking her to court. This could end up as a major footbullet.

[La La Lou Lou]

Wayne's crimes, no idea what he looks like now, but at one time it would have been making strong women swoon. A few strong men too.

[Free to shine]

I know nothing about US law of course but often wondered if there is a way to cancel the original "contract" by paying back the money given for signing?

[elwood]

yea, we'll see.

No, you won't.

[Lulu Belle]

I can't imagine a non-disclosure agreement like this is can be seen as valid by any court. It is not the same as a non-disclosure between employer and employee when SO members are completely dependent upon the C of S for every single facet of their lives. And it's already been ruled in many court venues that a contract requiring a citizen to sign away their constitutional rights is invalid.

I wondered about this too.

I am in no way a lawyer. But my understanding is that the usual reason for a non-disclosure agreement between an employer and an former employee is to protect company proprietary information and "trade secrets". Not so that the employee cannot report on fraud and abuse that that company engages in.

I hope tikk weighs in on this.

[La La Lou Lou]

I understood that you can't have a gagging agreement that can cover illegal activities. If the church was guilty say of false imprisonment then it's fine to take the money and talk too. Though the authorities might wonder why Debs didn't just talk to the police.

I understand where you're coming from Mick, it's a bit like a death bed conversion. It's a bit late, but I do welcome it anyway. You are right though, it doesn't excuse her own management misdeeds.

[Mick Wenlock]

Thank you Mick. I know that when Debbie joined the SO she was in CMO CW receiving higher pay, better berthing conditions, much better food and clothing, and all around routinely better treatment than most crew in all the other orgs in CW. It just goes to follow that she now deserves much higher "severance" pay. I also don't have much sympathy for her, and wonder that she didn't hold out for more.

I can't imagine a non-disclosure agreement like this is can be seen as valid by any court. It is not the same as a non-disclosure between employer and employee when SO members are completely dependent upon the C of S for every single facet of their lives. And it's already been ruled in many court venues that a contract requiring a citizen to sign away their constitutional rights is invalid.


You are mistaken in part. Enjoining someone from speaking critically in exchange for a contract is settled contract law. And has been for a very long time. You could make a good case for someone in the CofS and in the SO signing away their rights merely for the privilege of staying - as a coerced settlement but payment post hoc? They were out, not in. They signed a valid contract and were paid for signing it. There is not much to debate here. I point out that servicemen and women routinely sign secrecy agreements and that they are enforced by criminal law.

The 1st amendment is not what you may be assuming it is - it is not a guarantee that a person can say whatever they like WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES. For example - you can defame people publicly and the government cannot stop you - but you can pay a very high price for doing it.

Gag orders are routinely issued by courts. And have been upheld time and again.

The first amendment is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


It says nothing about whether private people or institutions can make rules saying you have to shut up. It is why you can be banned from this board for example. PLease note the 1st amendment LIMITS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY DO.

Ok - now for this case.

I hate to disappoint all the popcorn eaters, the swooners, the fainters and les tricoteuse but this is going to very pedestrian.

Step 1. Is there a valid contract between the parties? It is not whether one party is a creep or an asswipe - just is there a valid contract?
Step 2. Has the contract been breached?
Step 3. If the answer to 2 is yes - what are the sanctions stated in the contract?

This is not a trial about the first amendment - its a trial about a simple contract.

Debbie, given the fact that she has been busily promoting what a hotshot businessperson she is would have a very hard time denying she signed a valid contract of her own free will.

So the only point is - is what she wrote a breach of her contract in whole or in part?

There wont be long impassioned speeches from the dock, the judge will never allow it.

Also note - if she loses or wins the case the contract will remain.


I don't know what sort of threats were made to get her to sign it. It could have been detainment in the RPF (false imprisonment), the measely $500 (or nothing) that most departing SO members received, or threats of declaration and banishment from the bridge. Any or all of the above. The lawsuit means it can all come out, and leaves the church open for further actions. $300K is not a lot of money to seek for "irrepairable damages" to a multi-million dollar operation. Makes me think that DM may have a soft spot for Debbie.

No it does not mean it will "all come out" - it never does. This is a simple case legally.

[TG1]

Here's what tikk has to say about it, via a VV post he made that was quoted on WWP:

"Scientology's lawsuit cites a number of instances within Cook's e-mail they claim breaches the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) she and Baumgarten signed, and the question of whether they did will probably wind up being many separate questions, with individual passages of the e-mail matched to the passages of the NDA. The complaint doesn't do this beyond citing some paragraphs of the NDA they argue were violated [6(b), 6(d), 6(e), 6(h), 6(f) & 7(a)], so it's not worth speculating too extensively as to which sections of the e-mail violate which terms just yet.

"That said, I think one key question will focus on whether Cook revealed privileged information due to her former position [paragraph 6(b) of the NDA], or whether (as Cook will likely argue) that information was otherwise widely available. I think, too, that the meaning of "disparagement" could be key. It's not a reach to suggest that Cook's e-mail is critical of Church management and the relevant paragraph of the NDA [6(h)] is written somewhat broadly. And Cook did, presumably, cash the checks.

"But Cook and Baumgarten also have possible affirmative defenses that could make this case truly fascinating. Cook's e-mail is, at heart, a sincere religious argument. She's genuinely concerned about the direction of Scientology and strongly suggests that the current management is not adhering to Hubbard's doctrine, quoting him liberally throughout.

"A legitimate question therefore exists, I think, as to whether this isn't a contract dispute at all, but rather a religious dispute, which the Court could not resolve without violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment (i.e., courts are prohibited from deciding religious disputes lest they become impermissibly entangled in religious disputes), or without violating Cook and Baumgarten's First Amendment free exercise rights. If the Court is to find for Scientology over Cook/Baumgarten, it must not appear to be taking sides in a religious dispute, and that doesn't appear to be so easy a task."

TG1

[Mick Wenlock]

I wondered about this too.

I am in no way a lawyer. But my understanding is that the usual reason for a non-disclosure agreement between an employer and an former employee is to protect company proprietary information and "trade secrets". Not so that the employee cannot report on fraud and abuse that that company engages in.

I hope tikk weighs in on this.

Actually lulu you are partly right - An NDA or gag order cannot force you to, for example, incriminate yourself by perjury or refusal to answer a question in a court of law.

But there are many contracts that enforce non discussion of previous employers.

The key here - which the cofs knows all too well - is the payment of money. If I offer you a contract that forbids you to ever utter opinions about Winnie the Pooh and I offer you a cash payment to do as I ask - if you take the money and you sign the agreement - I could sure you for breach if you offered opinions about Pooh.

The first amendment does not guarantee your (or my) right to utter whatever we wish, when we wish without consequence for what we say.

[Mick Wenlock]

I also see on this thread that Mike says he received $5,000 - and presumably he also signed an NDA - but he has not disclosed what the NDA is.

I also assume that Marty received a payment? Has he said how much he got?

[Lulu Belle]

Gee, you would think that the 368 episodes of Law & Order I've watched would have made me more of an expert. :p

[La La Lou Lou]

OK Mick I've put me knitting down for a minute.

So if this contract is valid what happens if she has broken it? and refuses to stop squealing?

There have been recent cases in the UK where famous people have had orders shutting up the media from reporting on their infidelities and they have been ignored, the guys have spent a fortune on lawyers but if every comedian names the footballer and his lady friend then it fell apart.

This is from the Mail so it must be true...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385333/Super-injunctions-branded-pointless-millions-trawl-Twitter-web-names.html

[Gadfly]

I think it's delighful!! "We want Debbie Cook to shut up so we're going to take her to court and make her talk about it at length before a judge."

:lol::lol::lol:

And, get it firmly into the "public record"!

[Jquepublic]

What did she actually divulge that can't be found on Google, though? Nothing she covered in her email was confidential. So the only thing they MIGHT be able to get her on is the agreement never to say anything about Scientologists, in this case Miscavige. And since her address was solely regarding "off-policy actions" and heavily cited Hubbard doctrines that the Church itself has repeatedly sued to "protect and defend" I don't see how that can be made to stick. She's saying the Church violates its own policy - she's whistleblowing. NDA shouldn't have any legal bearing on her actions.

[secretiveoldfag]

Whether it's breach of contract or not there are some things that interest me in all of this.

What did Debbie hope to achieve when she sent out her email?

Was she just tying a tin can to little kitty's tail? Probably not, since she is still a Scientologist.

Does she hope to gather support for a radical reform of Scientology?

If so, does she envisage this reform taking place under DM? Probably not, since she says bad things about him.

In that case who does she see as the leader of the reformed organisation and controller of its billions of dolalrs?

Marty? Who knows so much of what goes on inside the CoS?

Which brings me to wonder if it is possible to reform an organisation based on corruption deception and crime?

[Teanntás]

My favorite part:

Arguing that it faced "substantial risk of imminent harm and irreparable injury," the church asked for and received an order temporarily restraining Cook and Baumgarten from saying anything more.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Amazing how little it takes to put these powerful OT's at the risk of imminent harm and IRREPARABLE injury. Anyway, let's hope it works out that way for the Church of Footbulletology.

[Gadfly]

Yeah, but she's not being sued by a "scientologist". She's being sued by "scientology"! What applies to the members apparently doesn't apply to the organization.

Helena

And, it never has. :no:

[SpecialFrog]

The NDA aspects of the agreement are probably unenforceable. NDAs never cover information that is in the public domain. I haven't gone through Debbie's e-mail in detail recently but I don't recall any information in it that isn't easily found online already.

Likewise, gag orders can never cover illegal activities. She may be able to argue that she is whistleblowing about CoS inurement, which is probably something they can't legally stop people from doing.

I'd guess it will come down to arguing what "disparaging" means and also what constitutes publishing.

It's probably been established by precedent but I would guess that private e-mails are not considered to be "published" so unless the Church can argue that she sent it with the intent of having it leaked it's a bit shaky there.

[Lulu Belle]

The NDA aspects of the agreement are probably unenforceable. NDAs never cover information that is in the public domain. I haven't gone through Debbie's e-mail in detail recently but I don't recall any information in it that isn't easily found online already.

Likewise, gag orders can never cover illegal activities. She may be able to argue that she is whistleblowing about CoS inurement, which is probably something they can't legally stop people from doing.

I'd guess it will come down to arguing what "disparaging" means and also what constitutes publishing.

It's probably been established by precedent but I would guess that private e-mails are not considered to be "published" so unless the Church can argue that she sent it with the intent of having it leaked it's a bit shaky there.

This is very much along the lines of what I was thinking.

[Gadfly]

Exactly.

By the way, it appears Marty was right. COS was planning on suing her. I would have to assume he had prior knowledge of this.

I'm not sure what the implications are: that Marty and Debbie really are in communication? That Marty has some kind of an inside track on things the church is planning to do?

No inside knowledge necessary.

It is standard Scientology LRH policy to sue people to shut them up. It is a commonly used tactic based on exact LRH policy. It is repetetive behavior that has been observed to ALWAYS occur in these sorts of situations. It is simply "logical" that they would sue. It was . . . . obvious.

From a recent post by Infinite (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26119-Co-sues-Debbie-Cook-in-Texas&p=654253&viewfull=1#post654253)on this same thread:


"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly" - L. Ron Hubbard

[Dulloldfart]

Well now, there must be hundreds of ex-SO people who signed those NDAs in order to GTFO of there. As others have stated, I would have signed anything to leave. As far as I remember, the things I signed had those "$50,000 per instance" or similar figures on them too. I got some KTL books in lieu of $500 (which unsurprisingly kept getting rejected on ITO FP), which was all totally fine by me as I didn't need the money thanks to that nice Mr. Visa.

Are they going to sue all the *other* ex-SO who have done far more to violate those "agreements" than Debbie? Rat and Rin come to mind as targets. They must have signed NDAs while on post, even if they didn't route out "standardly."

I agree there is a big difference between getting $500 before being tossed on the street and getting $50,000.

Paul

[La La Lou Lou]

Secretiveoldfaggy, if all the top blowers wanted to start up their own little cofs's it could get really interesting. Of course it might be another plan B. First plan B, send out captain Bill, he went gallactic, send out Marty he's too weak, send out Cooky, etc etc. Pretend to dislike them, sue them, send anti-squirrel renta-mobs but don't stop them. When the church does fold there will be apparently indi groups keeping the show going. The church funds can be emptied, the buildings taken away but the teck will carry on waiting for the messiah to reunite them as a huge entity.

Captain Bill, Debbie and Marty are saying how bad the church is but carrying on with the same.

They might not even know it but they're all working for the same goal.

[Lulu Belle]

No inside knowledge necessary.

It is standard Scientology LRH policy to sue people to shut them up. It is a commonly used tactic based on exact LRH policy. It is repetetive behavior that has been observed to ALWAYS occur in these sorts of situations. It is simply "logical" that they would sue. It was . . . . obvious.

Yeah, you could be right about that.

Though, as Paul said, why sue her when there are so many others who had to have signed gag orders who they haven't gone after?

[ClearEyed]

thanks, just donated.

I've known Debbie since when she came to Flag and worked in the CMO Clearwater.

She, in my opinion, was a success due to her being tech trained, she was, if I recall, in the CMO CW Crackerjack auditor unit, before her stint in the FSO as case cracker unit.

Even though I don't believe in the tech, what the case crackers did was assess a lot of the correction lists.

Someday, sidenote, someone will review the C/S 53, and the Green Form, and the L4BR and other correction lists, for what the mean, since those lists do have some degree of undoing a lot of their own brainwashing, but to fully undo the brainwashing you gotta get re-educated normal citizen wise by reading and learning totally outside the whole Hubbard system.

But anyone who's been, in my opinion, a "good" exec over the years, is at least knowledgeable about what "wrong indications" do to people. And an auditor who's done a lot of correction lists, and corrected people's "out lists" and "out list phenomenon", a whole LOT of Hubbard's BS and the movement members abuse to one another is all basically "out list" and 'wrong indications" (in otherwords forcing people to believe something they goddamn DON'T think is true, and that forcing and mislabelling and scapegoating and abuse and hazing and BS is all just a whole shitload of "wrong indications").

And someone at least who's sat down and helped their fellow Scientology shed a bunch of that "wrong indications" BS that one gets dumped with, in one's Scientologist life, at least gives a more empathetic drone within that Scientology staff member bee colony.

Debbie was at least sensitive, in my opinion, to people's "cases", even if limited to what I've listed in the "case cracker's" repertoire, those Hubbard "correction lists" to fix up fucked up and messed up "cases."

Flag's Case Cracking HGC, is just where supposedly, the best of the therapist/auditors did this "case" sort out of the fucked up "cases" of people coming from wherever they came from, in the world.

The Case Cracking HGC was supposed to just do excellent "metering" using the Hubbard polygraphy emeter, and find the correct "charge" and patch up these fucked up "cases" who had the bucks to come to Flag/Clearwater and get their cases cleaned up.

It's all it's own whole caccon of BS, but within that cacoon, Debbie was a pretty good case cracker.

Hubbard wanted his top execs to be trained in the tech, and be able to do it.

Miscavige is the anti-thesis of someone you'd like to have give you any kind of compassionate therapy, so he's the epitome of who NOT have lead a therapy/exorcism movement, where the therapists/exorcists are supposed to be compassionate listeners and guiders.

And yet I have seen more than one complaint by former FSO crew that, as the top exec in FSO, she routinely divulged contents from confessionals to all-crew meetings and used it to harass them and hold them up to ridicule by their peers.

Shame on her.

[ClearEyed]

The biggest hypocrisy is that it's a High Crime for one Scientologist to sue another Scientologist. Debbie Cook is a Scientologist, any scholar would call her one. Yet official Scientology violates its own rules and sues her!

Oh but now she is an "apostate", according to the church. I guess that makes it OK to sue her.

[ClearEyed]

...I also feel all SO members are entitled to a substantial payout.

I agree with that.

[Mick Wenlock]

OK Mick I've put me knitting down for a minute.

So if this contract is valid what happens if she has broken it? and refuses to stop squealing?

There have been recent cases in the UK where famous people have had orders shutting up the media from reporting on their infidelities and they have been ignored, the guys have spent a fortune on lawyers but if every comedian names the footballer and his lady friend then it fell apart.

This is from the Mail so it must be true...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385333/Super-injunctions-branded-pointless-millions-trawl-Twitter-web-names.html

If she has written items that constitute breaches of the contract - she will be sanctioned by the amount specified in the contract and presumably the cofs will be free to enact collecting activities using the whole gamut from garnishment to lien and ultimately bankruptcy.

If she refuses to shut up? Then it's gag orders and failure to follow those becomes contempt and that moves into a whole other realm. Once she starts defying the court rather than the cofs then imprisonment becomes a very real threat.

But as I said way back - the cofs is not suing her to put the genie back in the bottle. They are suing her to ruin her.

It does not matter to the cofs if they win or ultimately lose - the very act of nit picking through every line of what she wrote is going to take many many hours of very expensive attorney time. She will not be able to get an attorney for this on a contingency basis because she is the one being sued. As she has claimed to be a very successful businesswoman and she also received $50 K I doubt that she will get much traction (yet) for a pro bono lawyer.

So all the cofs has to do is to hammer away at every line of her email and try to prove that one or more points she states actually breach her contract. She cannot afford to lose a single argument. And she is going to pay an enormous amount of money.

:bigcry:

[Mick Wenlock]

I agree with that.

well personally speaking I would not say no to $50 K (Hey gloria - you reading this?) but to be honest (breaking new ground for me) I think the money should go back to those that gave it.

[Lermanet_com]

I was quietly retiring from activism until 20 minutes ago - I had backed off from doing anything than being a dad and a husband.:angry:

Cult has managed to piss me off again mightily with this - but I guess that's inevitable when you have a dwarf with the emotional age of 4 running a multi-billion scam-cult.:grouch:

I'm sure it's had the same effect on others too - way to go, Davey Boy:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap :

I hope You burn in Hell, you cancerous little gnome.:yes:

Oh - and fuck you too, OSA.

Scooter,

To some degree, I was actually a freezoner, until Scientology sued OT8 Enid vein, who had made copies of NOTs packs, and during the litigation her cat was shot in the belly. she was run out of money and settled, including a line in the settlement that said she would never speak about the cat incident.... but not before she told ME about it. It was the gut shot on OT8 Enid Vein's cat that pushed me over the edge in 1994.

Since then, several times I have tried to walk away from the alt.scientology.war, each time the asthmatic dwarf would do something (often to a personal friend) that pissed me off so much that, no longer caring about my own safety, just getting in a few licks on that empire of lies became my top priority...

The humane thing to do when an animal is mortally wounded is to end it.. put it out of its misery, re scientology, this is what time it is.

Thank you scooter.

Arnie Lerma.


Tommy is definitely in the hole.

I see two bad effects for the church on this
1) People in Scientology who agree with her might react to her being sued.
2) Anything she says in court is public record.

If she raises the allegation that Shelley Miscavige is missing, the court may not be able to ignore that.

Scientology planned on running me into the ground as a pro se litigant, but they did not know that Lawrence Wollersheim had appointed me as treasurer, on the Board of Directors of FACTNET. Thus I was covered by 2 million in insurance, after COS found out about the insurance coverage they raided and sued FACTNet in colorado, and started another case there, to run us out of money, which they almost did, except for the sudden appearance of a man named Bob Minton.

IF Debbie Cook can raise sufficient cash, for a sufficient length of time, she will prevail, and prevent a sealed, gagged, settlement of this litigation, kick some dwarf ass and maybe make some new law... In America, in civil litigation, most often, the man with the most money wins. and the worst litigant to deal with is a sociopath with more money than sense..(DM)
Arnie


The agreements they signed, which were filed with the lawsuit, provide a rare look at the church's extraordinary efforts to keep secret its inner workings. Among the restrictions on Cook and Baumgarten:
• They waived their First Amendment rights to free speech.
• They can never, "in perpetuity," disclose any information about the church, its staff or former staff.
• They can never publish, attempt to publish or help anyone publish any information about the church in any media, including newspapers, television, radio or the Internet.
• They can never utter a disparaging word about the church, either directly or indirectly.


Oh, the ACLU is gonna LOVE this. :biggrin:



LuLuBell

It is all good LuLuBell, just as long as the fundraising is effective, and sustained.

Re ACLU, The ACLU filed a brief (in support of scientology) and in opposition to the Flynn litigation 25 years ago, though I believe they did help an anon recently.

An ACLU Board member, Harvey Silvergate, later described allegations that scientology is a fraud as "religious bigotry"... see 2/3rds the way down on this page http://www.lermanet.com/silence.htm on Declan McCullogh's blog. (also an old ARS warrior from early 90's)

Arnie Lerma

[La La Lou Lou]

I suppose it can't make the church look worse than it already does. It's known for it's ruining people's lives through law courts. It's of course the on policy thing to do. It's hardly going to win it any friends.

They could though declaring bankruptcy and just loose their office furniture and stapler. Go and live in Mexico and start their own version of Flag there. They really can't have much to loose, well what's left of the two 50,000's of course. Small fry to an upstat business couple like them.

[Gadfly]

Oh but now she is an "apostate", according to the church. I guess that makes it OK to sue her.

The ONLY factor in ANY Church of Scientology action or behavior is whether or not it helps the expansion and income of the Church of Scientology. That is and has always been the TOP LEVEL PRIORITY. It is the basis of Scientology ethics and justice. There are no moral considerations of decency or ethics concerns past THAT. The survival of the Church of Scientology is the yardstick by which all things are measured in the Church of Scientology. It has ALWAYS been that way, just as envisioned by Hubbard in his exact policies.

It is okay to sue her because she is causing them trouble. It doesn't matter to them at all how much she did for them in the past, or how much she continues to really admire Hubbard. The notion of an "apostate" is a useful artifice that the Church of Scientlogy cooked up to create negative PR for any person who "leaves the Church". That is ALL it is.

It is the same how they use the notions of "religious extremists", and "hate speech". These ideas really do NOT apply to most cases of criticism of them, but these ideas are "popular" in the current version of educated society, and so they twist and bend various situations to try to make it appear that their enemies and detractors are guilty of such things. This involves Hubbard's original policies on how to attach Scientology enemies to unpopular groups (as Hubbard said to do in the 1950s with communists). Veda has the LRH referencs ("tech") on Hubbard's instructions on how to do this.

Scientology is NEVER "rational", but they are brutally consistent, and in a sense "logical", because they have to always "follow LRH policy". But you can understand their behavior rationally when you simply grasp that the TOP PRIORITY is always to protect, defend and expand Hubbard's corporate Church of Scientology. Hubbard set it up that way.

[ClearEyed]

I wondered about this too.

I am in no way a lawyer. But my understanding is that the usual reason for a non-disclosure agreement between an employer and an former employee is to protect company proprietary information and "trade secrets". Not so that the employee cannot report on fraud and abuse that that company engages in.

I hope tikk weighs in on this.

Well, I'm no lawyer, either and would be interested in seeing attorney opinions. There are whistle-blower laws meant to protect an employee from repercussions for reporting abuses. Doesn't always work. The thing about justice is that the outcome is dependent on the people involved in administering it.

[ClearEyed]

You are mistaken in part. Enjoining someone from speaking critically in exchange for a contract is settled contract law. And has been for a very long time. You could make a good case for someone in the CofS and in the SO signing away their rights merely for the privilege of staying - as a coerced settlement but payment post hoc? They were out, not in. They signed a valid contract and were paid for signing it. There is not much to debate here. I point out that servicemen and women routinely sign secrecy agreements and that they are enforced by criminal law.

The 1st amendment is not what you may be assuming it is - it is not a guarantee that a person can say whatever they like WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES. For example - you can defame people publicly and the government cannot stop you - but you can pay a very high price for doing it.

Gag orders are routinely issued by courts. And have been upheld time and again.

The first amendment is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


It says nothing about whether private people or institutions can make rules saying you have to shut up. It is why you can be banned from this board for example. PLease note the 1st amendment LIMITS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY DO.

Ok - now for this case.

I hate to disappoint all the popcorn eaters, the swooners, the fainters and les tricoteuse but this is going to very pedestrian.

Step 1. Is there a valid contract between the parties? It is not whether one party is a creep or an asswipe - just is there a valid contract?
Step 2. Has the contract been breached?
Step 3. If the answer to 2 is yes - what are the sanctions stated in the contract?

This is not a trial about the first amendment - its a trial about a simple contract.

Debbie, given the fact that she has been busily promoting what a hotshot businessperson she is would have a very hard time denying she signed a valid contract of her own free will.

So the only point is - is what she wrote a breach of her contract in whole or in part?

There wont be long impassioned speeches from the dock, the judge will never allow it.

Also note - if she loses or wins the case the contract will remain.



No it does not mean it will "all come out" - it never does. This is a simple case legally.

Good points, particularly about the way Debbie promotes her business knowledge. I disagree that the outcome it is so cut and dried, though. No matter how laws are written, don't dismiss the human factor when it comes to interpretation.

[Rene Descartes]

Oh I think you may find that the fact that they accepted $50,000 apiece for signing will mitigate against any finding of "extreme duress". They could have refused to accept the money and refused to sign.

They chose to take the money.

Most SO members got nothing at all when they left.

Really, I have no sympathy for Debbie at all.

If she wasn't under extreme duress then why the hell would they have to bribe her with 50,000 $ to sign it?

Rd00

[Lermanet_com]

Amazing how little it takes to put these powerful OT's at the risk of imminent harm and IRREPARABLE injury. Anyway, let's hope it works out that way for the Church of Footbulletology.


Teanntás

If there were just ONE OT in $cientology, they wouldn't need lawyers.

[Lermanet_com]

If she wasn't under extreme duress then why the hell would they have to bribe her with 50,000 $ to sign it?

Rd00


Rene,

Wollershiem called the technique, "The carrot and the stick"

They create extreme duress, (the stick) and offer a carrot ($$ of sufficient quantity to balance the duress applied) - this seems to be their formula for minimizing the cost of doing business for a fraud...

British Parliament, 1968:
Mr. St. John-Stevas:
Since the right Hon. Gentleman has reflected on the subject and is noted for his academic brilliance, would he say in one brief, concise sentence, exactly what Scientology is?

Mr. Crossman:
Yes, I think I could: it is a fraud. (http://www.lermanet.com/reference/graphicindex.htm)

[Rene Descartes]

Hmm let's see...

24 Million people X 50,000 per person communicated to....

Okay so according to this the Church wil lclaim that Debbie Cook owes the Church the sum of...

$ 1,200,000,000,000

1.2 trillion dollars

I think her lawyer should continuously make this statement to any courtroom, judge, jury, newspaper, newscaster, etc.

The more this is brought to light and made known the level of assinity of the church will just look grander and grander.

Rd00

[Rene Descartes]

Hmm let's see...

24 Million people X 50,000 per person communicated to....

Okay so according to this the Church wil lclaim that Debbie Cook owes the Church the sum of...

$ 1,200,000,000,000

1.2 trillion dollars

I think her lawyer should continuously make this statement to any courtroom, judge, jury, newspaper, newscaster, etc.

The more this is brought to light and made known the level of assinity of the church will just look grander and grander.

Rd00

Idjit!!

So that must be why they are suing for only $300,000

Wait a sec.

Did I just say ONLY $300,000?

Rd00

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Hmm.. With what Mick said, I'm becoming unsure that Debbie's case is all that good.. But she really have had to be comatose to not know what her own cult would do, and the legal realities?

Oh hell.. I still hope that the cult will lose this.

And I'm kind'a freaked that the US justice system is this much decided on who has the most money.. (Hey, that sounds like a Hubbard stat!)

:duh:

[ClearEyed]

Wayne's crimes, no idea what he looks like now, but at one time it would have been making strong women swoon. A few strong men too.

There's a pic of both from 2010 here

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/debbie_cook_scientology_enforcer_whistleblower_hom ophobia.php

[Stat]

The biggest hypocrisy is that it's a High Crime for one Scientologist to sue another Scientologist. Debbie Cook is a Scientologist, any scholar would call her one. Yet official Scientology violates its own rules and sues her!

Chuck, I love you. :)

[SpecialFrog]

What's so wrong about this, is they are suing.

Suing a fellow Scientologist is a High Crime, so they are violating their own rules!

I bet this is Hubbard's fault.

Sounds like an LRH fuckup!

Maybe Miscavige has awarded himself Kha Khan status. That means he can sue ten people without ethics penalties. How many is he up to?

[Stat]

Oh I think you may find that the fact that they accepted $50,000 apiece for signing will mitigate against any finding of "extreme duress". They could have refused to accept the money and refused to sign.

They chose to take the money.

Most SO members got nothing at all when they left.

Really, I have no sympathy for Debbie at all.

Mick, I agree, not taking the money and refusing to sign the bullshit papers,
would be the right thing to do. BUT, these people are Scientologists and they
just wanted to get the fuck out of that mad house and didn't know any better.
(The fear, desperation and immense intimidation/pressure, combined with illnesses comes to mind.)

And if you want to start your life over, you need money these days.

So DM's lawyers gave $100,000 to physically and mentally abused couple in exchange for them not talking about them being abused or something.

Last time I checked, Debbie didn't say a word about being abused personally.
What she did do is rambled extensively and properly (within the realm of Scientology) about how much things are "off Source" these days in the Church,
thanks to the current leader, in her epic e-mail.

With all that in mind, I respectfully disagree, Mick.

And I do sympathize with Debbie. (Not that you have to.)

And I am not even Scientologist anymore.

Peace.

[Stat]

What's so wrong about this, is they are suing.

Suing a fellow Scientologist is a High Crime, so they are violating their own rules!

I bet this is Hubbard's fault.

Sounds like an LRH fuckup!

I believe Marty kind of mentioned that LRH was kind of not like totally perfect, sort of, but only rarely. :thumbsup: :omg: :yes:

[Mick Wenlock]

If she wasn't under extreme duress then why the hell would they have to bribe her with 50,000 $ to sign it?

Rd00

well if it were real duress they wouldn't NEED $50,000 - would they?

[Gadfly]

With all Debbie knew, and the fact that under her watch she brought in about 1.7 BILLION DOLLARS for the cult, why did she accept a measely $50,000? :confused2:

This is probably why. What is sad is that when most SO members leave, they still agree with a large majority of the nutty Hubbard paradigm, and thus, they still want to "do Scientology", and they therefore have to remain "good boys and girls". They want to "do the leaving staff routing form fully and properly, and become a "public Scientologist". They want to be able to do services in the future, services that they still consider to be very valuable.

They are very cognizant of the fact that there is something they really don't like, and they identify that as the "organization". They fail to notice how the structure and operation of the Scientology organization is based on exact Hubbard instructions. They go through this crazy weird set of excuses where they imagine that "the current organization does suck, but ONLY because bad people are misapplying Ron's good data". The psychology of leaving Scientology is a fascinating subject! :yes:

When leaving the church organization, they are still way too far stuck with the various nutty ideas of Hubbard's. They haven't moved far enough along the "getting out process". That almost always is done on a "gradient". It took years to get any of them to be full card-carrying fanatics, and the onion takes time to peel away (after it had been so carefully built up).

[Rene Descartes]

well if it were real duress they wouldn't NEED $50,000 - would they?

Are yous aying the Church got away cheap with the bribe?

Rd00

[Mick Wenlock]

Mick, I agree, not taking the money and refusing to sign the bullshit papers,
would be the right thing to do. BUT, these people are Scientologists and they
just wanted to get the fuck out of that mad house and didn't know any better.
(The fear, desperation and immense intimidation/pressure, combined with illnesses comes to mind.)

And if you want to start your life over, you need money these days.

So DM's lawyers gave $100,000 to physically and mentally abused couple in exchange for them not talking about them being abused or something.

Last time I checked, Debbie didn't say a word about being abused personally.
What she did do is rambled extensively and properly (within the realm of Scientology) about how much things are "off Source" these days in the Church,
thanks to the current leader, in her epic e-mail.

With all that in mind, I respectfully disagree, Mick.

And I do sympathize with Debbie. (Not that you have to.)

And I am not even Scientologist anymore.

Peace.

oh thats fine Stat but it has no bearing at all on a law suit.

you are bringing a knife to a gunfight here.

it is fine for you to feel sorry for debbie and how she was abused - while earning loads of money and abusing others - but that has nothing at all to do with why she was given $50,000

she was NOT given the money because she was abused.

She was given the money because she agreed to STFU. So the question becomes - did she break the agreement.

Sorry if I seem harsh about debbie - you can feel sorry for her all you wish - I will feel sorry for the hundreds of SO members who were abused in the FSO with her in charge and for the hundreds of people who were conned out of millions upon millions of dollars some of whom could not afford it.

But my personal distaste for her notwithstanding - all of that has nothing to do with this case.

[Mick Wenlock]

Are yous aying the Church got away cheap with the bribe?

Rd00

No, I am saying the Debbie and wotsisname sold their souls for a mess of pottage.

[Stat]

I was quietly retiring from activism until 20 minutes ago - I had backed off from doing anything than being a dad and a husband.:angry:

Cult has managed to piss me off again mightily with this - but I guess that's inevitable when you have a dwarf with the emotional age of 4 running a multi-billion scam-cult.:grouch:

I'm sure it's had the same effect on others too - way to go, Davey Boy:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap :

I hope You burn in Hell, you cancerous little gnome.:yes:

Oh - and fuck you too, OSA.

Never a dull moment in the demise of Scientoville, eh?!

I feel you! :)

[Stat]

Newton's Law of Motion: For every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction.

Hubbard's Law of Commotion: For every policy, code, creed & piece of tech there is always an equal and opposite policy, code, creed & piece of tech.


Example:


(Per the Creed of the Church of Scientology) "We of the church believe that that all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others."

(Per HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 DECEMBER 1965, we of the church also believe that it is a Suppressive Act and a High Crime punishable by Fair Game to do any of the following) "Such Suppressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology Organizations; public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened; proposing, advising or voting for legislation or ordinances, rules or laws directed toward the Suppression of Scientology; pronouncing Scientologists guilty of the practice of standard Scientology; testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it; reporting or threatening to report Scientology or Scientologists to civil authorities in an effort to suppress Scientology or Scientologists from practicing or receiving standard Scientology; bringing civil suit against any Scientology organization or Scientologist including the nonpayment of bills or failure to refund without first calling the matter to the attention of the Chairman at Saint Hill and receiving a reply; demanding the return of any or all fees paid for standard training or processing actually received or received in part and still available but undelivered only because of departure of the person demanding (the fees must be refunded but this Policy Letter applies); writing anti-Scientology letters to the press or giving anti-Scientology or anti-Scientologist evidence to the press; testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public; continued membership in a divergent group; continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a Suppressive Person or Group by HCO; failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of Suppressive Acts; being at the hire of anti-Scientology groups or persons; organizing a splinter group to use Scientology data or any part of it to distract people from standard Scientology; organizing splinter groups to diverge from Scientology practices, still calling it Scientology or calling it something else; calling meetings of staffs or field auditors or the public to deliver Scientology into the hands of unauthorized persons or [persons] who will suppress it or alter it or who have no reputation for following standard lines and procedures; infiltrating a Scientology group or organization or staff to stir up discontent or protest at the instigation of hostile forces; 1st degree murder, arson, disintegration of persons or belongings; mutiny; seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or “to save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology”; engaging in malicious rumour mongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology or to “safeguard” a position; delivering up the person of a Scientologist without defense or protest to the demands of civil or criminal law; falsifying records that then imperil the liberty or safety of a Scientologist; knowingly giving false testimony to imperil a Scientologist; receiving money, favours or encouragement to suppress Scientology or Scientologists; sexual or sexually perverted conduct contrary to the well being or good state of mind of a Scientologist in good standing or under the charge of Scientology such as a student, a preclear, a ward or a patient; blackmail of Scientologists or Scientology organizations threatened or accomplished – in which case the crime being used for blackmail purposes becomes fully outside the reach of Ethics and is absolved by the fact of blackmail unless repeated."


In other words. . .

Dear Debbie,

You have the inalienable right to say or publish anything you want.

We have the inalienable right to destroy you for having done so.

ML,

Ron & Dave and All Your Scientology Friends


You nailed it again. Thank you, HH!

[Mike Laws]

Wayne's crimes, no idea what he looks like now, but at one time it would have been making strong women swoon. A few strong men too.

Wayne looks almost exactly the same, probably around 55, and he is just the same physically and otherwise.

[Mike Laws]

I also see on this thread that Mike says he received $5,000 - and presumably he also signed an NDA - but he has not disclosed what the NDA is.

I also assume that Marty received a payment? Has he said how much he got?

Marty did not take or get a penny.

[Stat]

Yeah, but she's not being sued by a "scientologist". She's being sued by "scientology"! What applies to the members is apparently doesn't apply to the organisation.

Helena

True, true, yet Scientology consists of Scientologists suing another Scientologist,
even via their non-Scientology lawyers, hired by Scientologists. :biggrin:

[elwood]

What I find interesting is that any legal case will hinge on whether what she said and how she said it actually violates the terms of her NDA. The CoS will not want this case to go to court because it would mean debating in a public forum every point she made . e.g Is it true and is it covered by the agreement?

BTW, NDAs are legal. Free speech has nothing to do with it. If you take money in return for agreeing to keep quiet (except for illegalities) you had better not talk.

[Dulloldfart]

If you take money in return for agreeing to keep quiet (except for illegalities) you had better not talk.

Would that apply to public paying the CofS for auditing and then having session confidentialities violated in later fair game attacks? Or even general staff tittle-tattle? :)

Paul

[Stat]

Well yeah Kev, in a way I am.

You and I - and many others on this board - ought to know that breach of contract is not really the issue. The cofs is not going for money here, Miscavige is going all out to scare the crap put of anyone else and he probably has a pretty clear cut case. The CofS isn't out to win money, it is just out to ruin Debbie. Now the money donated to her defense fund is OK but it is not going to come anywhere near the retainer she is going to have to pay and, the expenses that they are going to put her through.

I lack sympathy for her because she, for 17 years or more felt no compunction about throwing good people to the kerb during her tenure as CO FSO. People that were kicked out without a dime to their name and whose lives were stunted if not ruined and who lost family over it.

That she was paid off handsomely for her silence - WITH HER AGREEMENT - and then proceeded to make a happy little living off the same scientologists she had been happily ripping off before and you think I am being hard?

Sorry Kev - I am hard on people I think are being given a free pass when they are being excused for the grotesque things they did merely because they can now say titillating things about how bad it all was.

I have watched as Marty was busy doing the crocodile tears for Ortega about Annie, when he had dragged her back to the camp and then he and Rinder were part of the organization that kept her there,

I am really tired of watching all the swooning that happens because one more exploiter has come out and said something bad about Miscavige.

Fuck 'em, to be honest.

I understand and like you even more now, Mick.

But it's kind of like presidential elections - you know they are all full of shit
and will dance to their sponsor's songs, but some will try to play it smart to
retain sanity and a bit of honesty, for their and others benefit sake. You know?

[thetanic]

But there are many contracts that enforce non discussion of previous employers.

The key here - which the cofs knows all too well - is the payment of money.

Actually, I'd say the key is two-prong:

1) A genuine religious conviction for justice;
2) A genuine religious conviction for speaking out about abuses of justice.

If you hold (as Debbie does) that "Communication is the universal solvent" and other LRH-isms of that kind, one could argue that the right to communicate is a fundamental religious right she has that the contract doesn't trump, nor would the government be able to curtail her free exercise.

[Stat]

Well, I don't think anyone ever accused the CoS of being fast learners. :melodramatic:

Maybe Hubbard should have given OSA some tech on deductive reasoning. But that was not to be......:whistling:

But, but Mike Rinder (reluctantly) admitted to Germans that DM is a fast learner...
I guess he was referring to the the whole transition from the tapes to CDs... or was
it about the new printing facilities ...in this digital age...

[marjan]

Give a fool enough rope, and he will eventually hang himself with it... The insanity prevalent in SCN knows no end. This is not the behaviour of a church. This is the behaviour of a multi-national corporation with a LOT of skeletons in it's closet. Watch out, Mr. Miscavage, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein also thought they could never be tumbled....

[Stat]

Thank you Mick. I know that when Debbie joined the SO she was in CMO CW receiving higher pay, better berthing conditions, much better food and clothing, and all around routinely better treatment than most crew in all the other orgs in CW. It just goes to follow that she now deserves much higher "severance" pay. I also don't have much sympathy for her, and wonder that she didn't hold out for more.

I can't imagine a non-disclosure agreement like this is can be seen as valid by any court. It is not the same as a non-disclosure between employer and employee when SO members are completely dependent upon the C of S for every single facet of their lives. And it's already been ruled in many court venues that a contract requiring a citizen to sign away their constitutional rights is invalid.

I don't know what sort of threats were made to get her to sign it. It could have been detainment in the RPF (false imprisonment), the measely $500 (or nothing) that most departing SO members received, or threats of declaration and banishment from the bridge. Any or all of the above. The lawsuit means it can all come out, and leaves the church open for further actions. $300K is not a lot of money to seek for "irrepairable damages" to a multi-million dollar operation. Makes me think that DM may have a soft spot for Debbie.

I, personally, would love to stand in a trash can at the Scientology HQ,
with a sign hanging from my neck saying "I AM A LESBIAN", while fellow
Scientology's top executives pouring water on me and shouting kinky things
in my face. If this is not like totally hot, I don't know what is... :melodramatic: :biggrin:

[ClearEyed]

I, personally, would love to stand in a trash can at the Scientology HQ,
with a sign hanging from my neck saying "I AM A LESBIAN", while fellow
Scientology's top executives pouring water on me and shouting kinky things
in my face. If this is not like totally hot, I don't know what is... :melodramatic: :biggrin:

In his eyes...maybe it is.

[tikk]

If she has written items that constitute breaches of the contract - she will be sanctioned by the amount specified in the contract and presumably the cofs will be free to enact collecting activities using the whole gamut from garnishment to lien and ultimately bankruptcy.

If she refuses to shut up? Then it's gag orders and failure to follow those becomes contempt and that moves into a whole other realm. Once she starts defying the court rather than the cofs then imprisonment becomes a very real threat.

But as I said way back - the cofs is not suing her to put the genie back in the bottle. They are suing her to ruin her.

It does not matter to the cofs if they win or ultimately lose - the very act of nit picking through every line of what she wrote is going to take many many hours of very expensive attorney time. She will not be able to get an attorney for this on a contingency basis because she is the one being sued. As she has claimed to be a very successful businesswoman and she also received $50 K I doubt that she will get much traction (yet) for a pro bono lawyer.

So all the cofs has to do is to hammer away at every line of her email and try to prove that one or more points she states actually breach her contract. She cannot afford to lose a single argument. And she is going to pay an enormous amount of money.

:bigcry:

I largely agree with this and your earlier take, and wouldn't be at all surprised to see the case roll out as you predict, but I think there's a legitimate question of whether she actually violated the NDA. After rereading her email against the NDA and the lawsuit, I get the sense that Cook wrote the email with the NDA in mind and, adopting a narrow reading of the NDA, attempted to not violate it. If the NDA is read broadly, and a court adopts the broadest meaning of "disparage" then it'll probably be found that she violated it. Getting there will likely be an excruciating, line-by-line assessment, and I don't think anyone can say for certain how it'll come out. It's close.

Also, there are things in the agreement that are standard, and then there are things that raise eyebrows and suggest perhaps an argument for unconscionability. One of them is the highly unconventional non-mutual arbitration clause. If Cook/Baumgarten have a dispute arising from the agreement, they're required to seek redress by "binding ecclesiastical arbitration", meaning that if they have a problem with Scientology, a Scientology IJC will decide the matter. Sound fair? Even the drafter of the NDA realized how ridiculous that is, and provided a second solution (a legitimate neutral arbitrator) if Cook can't resolve the matter in "ecclesiastical arbitration" (you think?). And Scientology, of course, isn't bound by arbitration, they can just go to court. The point is that an argument could be made that such a one-sided clause renders the NDA invalid.

To address a point I keep seeing, yes, you can sell your free speech rights, they are waivable, and if Cook's case relies on that argument, she'll lose. Which is one reason I suggested the affirmative defense that this is a non-justiciable religious dispute, and not a contract dispute. If successful, the technical inquiry of whether Cook/Baumgartner violated their NDAs wouldn't matter. Up until she sent the email, Cook considered herself a Scientologist in good standing, as did Scientology (unless I'm mistaken), which may distinguish this matter from typical NDAs where the parties sever their relationship for good. So not only is the content of the email largely "religious", but the nature of the parties' relationship at the time remained Church -> Parishioner; not Church -> Ex-Church-Employee. If viewed through this lens, the NDA could be read restrictively to only prohibit Cook from disclosing privileged and confidential information learned in her capacity as a church officer, and permit her to continue to voice her concerns on religious matters.

The religion sword cuts both ways, and at some point Independents are going to have to use it against Scientology. This seems like a pretty good opportunity.

[Lulu Belle]

I largely agree with this and your earlier take, and wouldn't be at all surprised to see the case roll out as you predict, but I think there's a legitimate question of whether she actually violated the NDA. After rereading her email against the NDA and the lawsuit, I get the sense that Cook wrote the email with the NDA in mind and, adopting a narrow reading of the NDA, attempted to not violate it. If the NDA is read broadly, and a court adopts the broadest meaning of "disparage" then it'll probably be found that she violated it. Getting there will likely be an excruciating, line-by-line assessment, and I don't think anyone can say for certain how it'll come out. It's close.

Also, there are things in the agreement that are standard, and then there are things that raise eyebrows and suggest perhaps an argument for unconscionability. One of them is the highly unconventional non-mutual arbitration clause. If Cook/Baumgarten have a dispute arising from the agreement, they're required to seek redress by "binding ecclesiastical arbitration", meaning that if they have a problem with Scientology, a Scientology IJC will decide the matter. Sound fair? Even the drafter of the NDA realized how ridiculous that is, and provided a second solution (a legitimate neutral arbitrator) if Cook can't resolve the matter in "ecclesiastical arbitration" (you think?). And Scientology, of course, isn't bound by arbitration, they can just go to court. The point is that an argument could be made that such a one-sided clause renders the NDA invalid.

To address a point I keep seeing, yes, you can sell your free speech rights, they are waivable, and if Cook's case relies on that argument, she'll lose. Which is one reason I suggested the affirmative defense that this is a non-justiciable religious dispute, and not a contract dispute. If successful, the technical inquiry of whether Cook/Baumgartner violated their NDAs wouldn't matter. Up until she sent the email, Cook considered herself a Scientologist in good standing, as did Scientology (unless I'm mistaken), which may distinguish this matter from typical NDAs where the parties sever their relationship for good. So not only is the content of the email largely "religious", but the nature of the parties' relationship at the time remained Church -> Parishioner; not Church -> Ex-Church-Employee. If viewed through this lens, the NDA could be read restrictively to only prohibit Cook from disclosing privileged and confidential information, and permit her to continue to voice her concerns on religious matters.

The religion sword cuts both ways, and at some point Independents are going to have to use it against Scientology. This seems like a pretty good opportunity.

Thanks so much for weighing in on this!

[Stat]

I expect that she took legal advice before she sent out the initial email, and is not too worried about the Cult taking her to court. This could end up as a major footbullet.

IT IS a major footbullet, regardless. :yes:

[tikk]

[snip]The CofS isn't out to win money, it is just out to ruin Debbie.

I don't think the primary goal here is to ruin Debbie, it's to (a) silence her, and (b) make her an example that this sort of thing won't be tolerated. Cook has, or rather had, extraordinary access and authority when she sent her email, and her general message to withhold money from Scientology would naturally have been viewed with horror. So not only do they want to silence her to silence the message, but her public act requires a show-of-strength public response. If the goal was merely to ruin, they could have chosen procedural steps guaranteed to make this go slower, and in more courts.

[Smilla]

Well yeah Kev, in a way I am.

You and I - and many others on this board - ought to know that breach of contract is not really the issue. The cofs is not going for money here, Miscavige is going all out to scare the crap put of anyone else and he probably has a pretty clear cut case. The CofS isn't out to win money, it is just out to ruin Debbie. Now the money donated to her defense fund is OK but it is not going to come anywhere near the retainer she is going to have to pay and, the expenses that they are going to put her through.

I lack sympathy for her because she, for 17 years or more felt no compunction about throwing good people to the kerb during her tenure as CO FSO. People that were kicked out without a dime to their name and whose lives were stunted if not ruined and who lost family over it.

That she was paid off handsomely for her silence - WITH HER AGREEMENT - and then proceeded to make a happy little living off the same scientologists she had been happily ripping off before and you think I am being hard?

Sorry Kev - I am hard on people I think are being given a free pass when they are being excused for the grotesque things they did merely because they can now say titillating things about how bad it all was.

I have watched as Marty was busy doing the crocodile tears for Ortega about Annie, when he had dragged her back to the camp and then he and Rinder were part of the organization that kept her there,

I am really tired of watching all the swooning that happens because one more exploiter has come out and said something bad about Miscavige.

Fuck 'em, to be honest.

I feel the same. Somebody who did really bad stuff in the Cult shouldn't be awarded instant hero status the minute they walk out the door.

[Stat]

I know nothing about US law of course but often wondered if there is a way to cancel the original "contract" by paying back the money given for signing?

That's not a bad idea, but accepting money back from an SP Scientologist, could possibly cause a PTS condition in RTC,
full of not SP Scientologists and that would not be a good thing. :no:
Even SP Ex-Scientologists agree on that, me thinks. :yes:

[Veda]

Debbie Cook is quoted as saying, "I have no money to spend on an attorney," yet I've also read that she's fundraising for her own defense, although, from what I can see, nothing is mentioned on her face book site. She must be aware of Marty Rathbun's fundraising drive (begun around the 22nd or 23rd of January) in her name, yet as of 26 January, or slightly earlier, is quoted as saying that she "has no money," etc.

I haven't read this entire thread, so perhaps there is pertinent information contained herein. Is there a link to where Debbie Cook is fundraising? Is there any response by her to Marty Rathbun's fundraising? There must be some communication between them, or would this jeopardize her case?

It may be necessary to wait a while until more information is available.

[thetanic]

Debbie Cook is quoted as saying, "I have no money to spend on an attorney," yet I've also read that she's fundraising for her own defense, although, from what I can see, nothing is mentioned on her face book site.

She doesn't really post much to facebook, at least I can't see anything. I'm not one of her friends, though. She locked down her FB after the fallout from the letter.

Lots of people's lives don't revolve around facebook.

[Stat]

And yet I have seen more than one complaint by former FSO crew that, as the top exec in FSO, she routinely divulged contents from confessionals to all-crew meetings and used it to harass them and hold them up to ridicule by their peers.

Shame on her.

Of course. She is a Scientologist. This is not the point.

http://i41.tinypic.com/125pf9d.jpg

[Boomima]

I feel the same. Somebody who did really bad stuff in the Cult shouldn't be awarded instant hero status the minute they walk out the door.

This is something that I have found curious. (Especially when it comes to people who did really terrible things when they were in the COS.) Is leaving enough to be granted forgiveness as long as one is fighting DM?

DM is one wee person and can only do so much himself. He has a lot of help accomplishing what he does.

[Boomima]

For those who care - the article about the Debbie Cook lawsuit is on the front page of the Tampa Bay Times today but it's below the fold. Blame the GOP primary for that one.

[MostlyLurker]

I think thongs should go that way:

1) The NDA should be invalidated as signed under duress, and they should return the 100.000$ to Co$ and get back their right to free speech.

2) They should use their free speech right to tell what they witnessed.

About Debbie not having the 100.000$, fund raising amongst indies will do, I'm sure.

They should also make it clear that it was criminal activity against human rights what they witnessed, and the the on disclosure of that crimes the only reason for Co$ forcing them to sign the NDA.

[Veda]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/church-of-scientology-sues-longtime-clearwater-leader-over-new-years-eve/1213102


For those who care - the article about the Debbie Cook lawsuit is on the front page of the Tampa Bay Times today but it's below the fold. Blame the GOP primary for that one.

Yes, the opening post has the link.

[Mick Wenlock]

I think thongs should go that way:

1) The NDA should be invalidated as signed under duress, and they should return the 100.000$ to Co$ and get back their right to free speech.

2) They should use their free speech right to tell what they witnessed.

About Debbie not having the 100.000$, fund raising amongst indies will do, I'm sure.

They should also make it clear that it was criminal activity against human rights what they witnessed, and the the on disclosure of that crimes the only reason for Co$ forcing them to sign the NDA.

well that's nice pie in the sky stuff.

But no NDA covers reporting of criminal activity. But up to now they apparently didn't see any.

[Stat]

Yeah, you could be right about that.

Though, as Paul said, why sue her when there are so many others who had to have signed gag orders who they haven't gone after?

Why? Because Debbie Cook is a Flag poster girl, an opinion leader
and a Scientologist in a good standing (was), who sent an email to
thousands of other good Scientologists and it made Davey very sad.

[Mark A. Baker]

Why? Because Debbie Cook is a Flag poster girl, an opinion leader
and a Scientologist in a good standing (was), who sent an email to
thousands of other good Scientologists and it made Davey very sad.

Very true. Same reasons that hubbard, little davey, & marty set out to destroy David Mayo at all cost back in the '80s. Fortunately they did not succeed in their efforts at destroying him, but they have put him and many of his close friends & associates through a living hell.


Mark A. Baker

[Lulu Belle]

I'm reading some of the responses to the article on the Village Voice blog.

Thought this one was interesting.

From Gerald Plourde:

I'm not sure that the COS can prove that a breach of the agreement occurred.

Point 1 - Debbie Cook only disseminated her email to fellow Scientologists and has been diligent in her efforts to stop publication by others.

Point 2 - The activities she describes and the documents she cites (Policy Memos not religious texts) would appear to be things that would be common knowledge to her intended recipients. You can't disclose what everyone already knows.

Point 3 - Unless the COS can show definitive proof that the LRH statements she quotes are to be interpreted other than the way Ms. Cook has interpreted them, it will be extremely difficult to maintain that she is disparaging Scientology. The church management may have to disclose far more information than they would like to show that their actions regarding the high pressure selling of courses and materials are countenanced by the written policies. Is there a published policy that clearly states that Scientologists are requires to open their wallets and checkbooks on demand?

Point 4 - If no breach has occurred, the COS may have exposed itself to a subsequent suit by Ms. Cook and her husband for abuse of the legal process.

[Stat]

oh thats fine Stat but it has no bearing at all on a law suit.

you are bringing a knife to a gunfight here.

it is fine for you to feel sorry for debbie and how she was abused - while earning loads of money and abusing others - but that has nothing at all to do with why she was given $50,000

she was NOT given the money because she was abused.

She was given the money because she agreed to STFU. So the question becomes - did she break the agreement.

Sorry if I seem harsh about debbie - you can feel sorry for her all you wish - I will feel sorry for the hundreds of SO members who were abused in the FSO with her in charge and for the hundreds of people who were conned out of millions upon millions of dollars some of whom could not afford it.

But my personal distaste for her notwithstanding - all of that has nothing to do with this case.

Good points, Mick. Thank you.

So, I assume, DM and his legal team are pretty sure
that Debbie did break an agreement...
I wonder what are her chances/odds...

[Smurf]

What's CoS's legal basis for suing Wayne Baumgarten? What's his alleged crime?

The cult claims there were emails from Wayne, using Debbie's email account, claiming to be involved in sending out the emails.

Whether this is true, or more OSA crap, they're trying to assert Wayne had a conspiratorial role in Deb's actions and made no attempts to stop it, thus violating the NDA that he signed.

[Stat]

What I find interesting is that any legal case will hinge on whether what she said and how she said it actually violates the terms of her NDA. The CoS will not want this case to go to court because it would mean debating in a public forum every point she made . e.g Is it true and is it covered by the agreement?

BTW, NDAs are legal. Free speech has nothing to do with it. If you take money in return for agreeing to keep quiet (except for illegalities) you had better not talk.

Is "Debbie the lesbian in a trash can" incident can be considered as an illegality? :omg: :yes:

[Lulu Belle]

The cult claims there were emails from Wayne, using Debbie's email account, claiming to be involved in sending out the emails.

Whether this is true, or more OSA crap, they're trying to assert Wayne had a conspiratorial role in Deb's actions and made no attempts to stop it, thus violating the NDA that he signed.

IANAL, but that really sounds like a stretch to me.

It wasn't even his email account. And for him to keep to the terms of his NDA, he was obligated to "stop" someone else?

[Smurf]

I don't think the primary goal here is to ruin Debbie, it's to (a) silence her, and (b) make her an example that this sort of thing won't be tolerated.

Yes, and if a judge renders monetary damages against her for violating the contract, the cult can easily use this to gradually strangle her financially over a long period of time. I worked in legal collections for many years and there are many tools available to make people's lives a living hell for decades.

For example, if Debbie & Wayne are found guilty of violating the contract & are order to pay monetary damages, the cult can get an Abstract of Judgement recorded with the court, a copy which is sent to the top 3 credit reporting agencies (ruins their credit), and this abstract entitles the cult to recover assets through garnishing wages, ceasing bank accounts & placing a lien on her home & real property.

Should Debbie & Wayne want to sell their home, they would find themselves in court again, arguing why the cult was not entitled to seize the proceeds, or a substantial portion of it, from the sale of the home.

The Abstract of Judgement is in affect for 10 years, however, the cult is free to file a Renewal of Judgement with the court extending the judgement for another 10 years, and another 10 years after that. A judge is not involved in this; it's simply filed with a court clerk and he/she renews it. Long story short.. the cult could easily ruin her & Wayne's credit history for the next 30 years and cause her to suffer considerable financial strain for that long. (25% deduction from wages)

And, in many courts, judgements stemming from cases where contract violations have occurred are exempt from bankruptcy, because the court sanctions were punitive in nature (a breach of contract law). I don't know what Texas law is in such cases, but that is often the case in California.

[Vittorio]

Very true. Same reasons that hubbard, little davey, & marty set out to destroy David Mayo at all cost back in the '80s. Fortunately they did not succeed in their efforts at destroying him, but they have put him and many of his close friends & associates through a living hell.


Mark A. Baker

They do not care who they destroy.

I do not wish to contribute to Debbie's fund, but I hope the whole truth comes out and that she witholds nothing in order to 'protect Scientology' or 'protect LRH's legacy'.

[HelluvaHoax!]

oh thats fine Stat but it has no bearing at all on a law suit.

you are bringing a knife to a gunfight here.

it is fine for you to feel sorry for debbie and how she was abused - while earning loads of money and abusing others - but that has nothing at all to do with why she was given $50,000

she was NOT given the money because she was abused.

She was given the money because she agreed to STFU. So the question becomes - did she break the agreement.

Sorry if I seem harsh about debbie - you can feel sorry for her all you wish - I will feel sorry for the hundreds of SO members who were abused in the FSO with her in charge and for the hundreds of people who were conned out of millions upon millions of dollars some of whom could not afford it.

But my personal distaste for her notwithstanding - all of that has nothing to do with this case.


I agree with your assessment of the merits of the case and the, at best, very wobbly ground that Debbie might try to defend against overwhelming odds. However. . .

This assumes that Debbie and her lawyer(s) are engaged in some naively noble--but doomed--pyrrhric strategy. But perhaps they are a tad more clever than a lone foot soldier ambling into battle against a heavily-fortified COS King Tiger tank.


http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/632190-2/vehicle_tigerii_17
The Königstiger (King Tiger) tank was the largest and most powerful tank
released by German forces during the war. It had the firepower to knock out
virtually any Allied tank and enough armor to shrug off most Allied firepower
at the time (excluding hollow charge weapons), but it suffered from multiple
mechanical problems due to its rushed development and excessive weight

Whatever, then, could they possibly be thinking? Perhaps this. . .

It's a game of high-stakes litigation poker. The church has pulled out its tried-and-true weapon of choice. The lawsuit to harass and make the enemy sue for peace. The church's strategy here is to surround the insurgents and lay siege to the enemy's little village and commence a never-ending artillery bombardment, until the shell-shocked denizens all perish or come stumbling or crawling out with raised white flags.

Again, this all assumes that Debbie's legal battle plan is to meet the Königstiger with no more than a valiant war cry, a glorious charge and a slingshot.

But what if they are not planning in the slightest to fight the church's war machine on level ground, but instead use an aerial attack from above? That might considerably change the dynamics of the battle against a ponderously slow and heavy tank.

What would that be, exactly? Just this--

Fighting this case not on in the arena of transactional (contract) law, but instead on religious ground. That's correct--because the religious angle is not only Scientology's strength, it is its achilles heel too. In this poker game, the church holds two Kings (Hubbard and Miscavige), but Debbie might have aces. The CoS's own aces, the constitutionally protected "Freedom of Religion".

If Debbie is practicing her religion by writing that letter, then that trumps contract law. And that is precisely what I think she will do. Hubbard's holy scripture does not merely suggest that parishioners write up outpoints of out-tech or off-policy, it demands this as a religious sacrament.

Sure, she might have spoken in violation of her confidentiality agreement, but the CoS has no right to impede her ability or right to worship and practice her religion. By sending out the letter she was, in fact, applying the gradients of ethics (making a non-optimum situation known); she was in fact by-passing the parties normally in charge of the area as part of her Danger condition; she was in fact seeking to keep Scientology working by counseling other faithful to do what scripture commands and not stray from it whatsoever.

When Debbie advises others to read Ron's words and follow them, she is practicing her religion.

I think that is what the carefully crafted letter was all about. It is why she held fast to the simple objective of following Ron's words and nothing else.

Well, even in the rather silly scenario where she had not thought all this out in advance, she can now still enact this strategy.

I'd give Debbie some pretty good odds of prevailing or at least backing the CoS down if she fights them on the Freedom of Religion issue. Especially because that legal theory opens the door to discovery & deposition requiring David Miscavich to show up.

[secretiveoldfag]

What I find interesting is that any legal case will hinge on whether what she said and how she said it actually violates the terms of her NDA. The CoS will not want this case to go to court because it would mean debating in a public forum every point she made . e.g Is it true and is it covered by the agreement?

BTW, NDAs are legal. Free speech has nothing to do with it. If you take money in return for agreeing to keep quiet (except for illegalities) you had better not talk.


A tax-exempt body run for the benefit of a private individual is surely illegal?

[GreyLensman]

Ah, but only the Church of Scientology can say who is a REAL SCIENTOLOGIST! :duh:

So...

Debbie has been "Fair Gamed"? I could swear that's another policy that was cancelled and no longer exists in the Church... Just saying.

[chuckbeatty]

And yet I have seen more than one complaint by former FSO crew that, as the top exec in FSO, she routinely divulged contents from confessionals to all-crew meetings and used it to harass them and hold them up to ridicule by their peers.

Shame on her.

yea agreed, she gets no pass on any bulllshit like that.

It's a mad organization, imagine the bullshit dozens of ex Int Base staff are sitting on, all the BS they've racked up.

Even though it all stinks, and the rules seem to perpetuate them degrading each other and falling into this hazing and abusing each other, staff mainly, there have been countless pockets of less abuse and even points of decency.

The whole mess seems destined not to just collapse, though, even if Miscavige were to die of lung cancer himself, he smoked a lot, I think he's quit now.

The rule system is intense, it keeps staff stuck in the Hubbard ruts.

All the "evil" staff can get kicked out or blow, but still those left have to fend off the Hubbard conflicting rules and abusive predicaments the rules cause them.

They don't just have a hell of a time with Miscavige, they unwitting have a hell of a time with the Hubbard rules that make them into slaves to the system (scapegoat each other, wrongly label one another with the myriad negative labels Hubbard left them to label each other with).

[Stat]

I agree with your assessment of the merits of the case and the, at best, very wobbly ground that Debbie might try to defend against overwhelming odds. However. . .

This assumes that Debbie and her lawyer(s) are engaged in some naively noble--but doomed--pyrrhric strategy. But perhaps they are a tad more clever than a lone foot soldier ambling into battle against a heavily-fortified COS King Tiger tank.


http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/632190-2/vehicle_tigerii_17
The Königstiger (King Tiger) tank was the largest and most powerful tank
released by German forces during the war. It had the firepower to knock out
virtually any Allied tank and enough armor to shrug off most Allied firepower
at the time (excluding hollow charge weapons), but it suffered from multiple
mechanical problems due to its rushed development and excessive weight

Whatever, then, could they possibly be thinking? Perhaps this. . .

It's a game of high-stakes litigation poker. The church has pulled out its tried-and-true weapon of choice. The lawsuit to harass and make the enemy sue for peace. The church's strategy here is to surround the insurgents and lay siege to the enemy's little village and commence a never-ending artillery bombardment, until the shell-shocked denizens all perish or come stumbling or crawling out with raised white flags.

Again, this all assumes that Debbie's legal battle plan is to meet the Königstiger with no more than a valiant war cry, a glorious charge and a slingshot.

But what if they are not planning in the slightest to fight the church's war machine on level ground, but instead use an aerial attack from above? That might considerably change the dynamics of the battle against a ponderously slow and heavy tank.

What would that be, exactly? Just this--

Fighting this case not on in the arena of transactional (contract) law, but instead on religious ground. That's correct--because the religious angle is not only Scientology's strength, it is its achilles heel too. In this poker game, the church holds two Kings (Hubbard and Miscavige), but Debbie might have aces. The CoS's own aces, the constitutionally protected "Freedom of Religion".

If Debbie is practicing her religion by writing that letter, then that trumps contract law. And that is precisely what I think she will do. Hubbard's holy scripture does not merely suggest that parishioners write up outpoints of out-tech or off-policy, it demands this as a religious sacrament.

Sure, she might have spoken in violation of her confidentiality agreement, but the CoS has no right to impede her ability or right to worship and practice her religion. By sending out the letter she was, in fact, applying the gradients of ethics (making a non-optimum situation known); she was in fact by-passing the parties normally in charge of the area as part of her Danger condition; she was in fact seeking to keep Scientology working by counseling other faithful to do what scripture commands and not stray from it whatsoever.

When Debbie advises others to read Ron's words and follow them, she is practicing her religion.

I think that is what the carefully crafted letter was all about. It is why she held fast to the simple objective of following Ron's words and nothing else.

Well, even if for the rather silly scenario where she had not thought all this out in advance, she can now still enact this strategy.

I'd give Debbie some pretty good odds of prevailing or at least backing the CoS down if she fights them on the Freedom of Religion issue. Especially because that legal theory opens the door to discovery & deposition requiring David Miscavich to show up.

Great post, HH! It's really hard to argue with. I hope Debbie reads it.

[tikk]

Yes, and if a judge renders monetary damages against her for violating the contract, the cult can easily use this to gradually strangle her financially over a long period of time. I worked in legal collections for many years and there are many tools available to make people's lives a living hell for decades.

For example, if Debbie & Wayne are found guilty of violating the contract & are order to pay monetary damages, the cult can get an Abstract of Judgement recorded with the court, a copy which is sent to the top 3 credit reporting agencies (ruins their credit), and this abstract entitles the cult to recover assets through garnishing wages, ceasing bank accounts & placing a lien on her home & real property.

Should Debbie & Wayne want to sell their home, they would find themselves in court again, arguing why the cult was not entitled to seize the proceeds, or a substantial portion of it, from the sale of the home.

The Abstract of Judgement is in affect for 10 years, however, the cult is free to file a Renewal of Judgement with the court extending the judgement for another 10 years, and another 10 years after that. A judge is not involved in this; it's simply filed with a court clerk and he/she renews it. Long story short.. the cult could easily ruin her & Wayne's credit history for the next 30 years and cause her to suffer considerable financial strain for that long. (25% deduction from wages)

And, in many courts, judgements stemming from cases where contract violations have occurred are exempt from bankruptcy, because the court sanctions were punitive in nature (a breach of contract law). I don't know what Texas law is in such cases, but that is often the case in California.

That's all true and useful--the judgment interest rate in most states is around 9%. But I still think ruining Cook utterly is a consequential byproduct of the main goal, which is stop and prevent her from further speaking with members. But yeah, they'll turn the screws as hard as the Texas court will allow them with regard to enforcing the agreement, and will figure out how to get her into a different court if they don't like how things are proceeding.

[HelluvaHoax!]

Great post, HH! It's really hard to argue with. I hope Debbie reads it.

Please ask Marty to make that $50,000 check payable to the Church of Hoaxology for this initial consultation. :biggrin:

[Mark A. Baker]

oh thats fine Stat but it has no bearing at all on a law suit.

you are bringing a knife to a gunfight here.

it is fine for you to feel sorry for debbie and how she was abused - while earning loads of money and abusing others - but that has nothing at all to do with why she was given $50,000

she was NOT given the money because she was abused.

She was given the money because she agreed to STFU. So the question becomes - did she break the agreement.

Sorry if I seem harsh about debbie - you can feel sorry for her all you wish - I will feel sorry for the hundreds of SO members who were abused in the FSO with her in charge and for the hundreds of people who were conned out of millions upon millions of dollars some of whom could not afford it.

But my personal distaste for her notwithstanding - all of that has nothing to do with this case.

You're right, Mick. Nor is appeal to religious freedom a viable defense. The only thing that is relevant is whether she entered voluntarily into a contractural arrangement and subsequently violated the terms of the agreement. A court would likely rule that receipt and retention of the money is a pretty clear indicator of voluntary acquiescence. The question of violation of contract then becomes the determining factor.


Mark A. Baker

[Lulu Belle]

That's all true and useful--the judgment interest rate in most states is around 9%. But I still think ruining Cook utterly is a consequential byproduct of the main goal, which is stop and prevent her from further speaking with members. But yeah, they'll turn the screws as hard as the Texas court will allow them with regard to enforcing the agreement, and will figure out how to get her into a different court if they don't like how things are proceeding.

It's just amazing to me.

That they are going down this road.

The email has been sent, broadcasted by the media, distributed by thousands of individuals and websites and news sites. The toothpaste is well out of the tube.

Suing her just stirs all of it up all over again, rather than just letting it be "yesterday's news".

What benefit could COS possibly derive from the results of this lawsuit? It can't possibly be PR, that's for sure.

[Ogsonofgroo]

It's just amazing to me.

That they are going down this road.

The email has been sent, broadcasted by the media, distributed by thousands of individuals and websites and news sites. The toothpaste is well out of the tube.

Suing her just stirs all of it up all over again, rather than just letting it be "yesterday's news".

What benefit could COS possibly derive from the results of this lawsuit? It can't possibly be PR, that's for sure.

Um, set examples of the aweshum might of davey Miscavige?





:hysterical:

[HelluvaHoax!]

You're right, Mick. Nor is appeal to religious freedom a viable defense.The only thing that is relevant is whether she entered voluntarily into a contractural arrangement and subsequently violated the terms of the agreement. A court would likely rule that receipt and retention of the money is a pretty clear indicator of voluntary acquiescence. The question of violation of contract then becomes the determining factor.
Mark A. Baker

There is good and bad in what you say.

The good is that you have obviously not spent any time in litigation.

The bad is that your purely academic theories of how thing work are not how it actually plays out in real life or within the legal arena.

There is nothing certain in litigation. The simple fact that a contract has been signed with proper consideration is not the end of a case, it is only the very beginning.

EXAMPLE: In my earlier entrepreneurial days I had a signed contract with another party where we settled a matter with a rather long and fully executed contract. I wrote a rather substantial check to finalize the transaction. Months later the other party decided to lawyer up and try to undo the transaction. I naively thought it would get dismissed by the court in the early stages because of a perfected contract that globally settled the matter in every respect. Not so easy. Opposing counsel had researched multiple causes of action to undo that signed contract. I won't detail here, but that was my first big eye-opening lesson in being "certain" about the outcome. That particular battle carried on for some time and long before it ever got close to trial (and I had spent hundreds of thousands on legal) the parties entered into a new settlement agreement, tossing aside the previous one.


A court would likely rule that receipt and retention of the money is a pretty clear indicator of voluntary acquiescence.
Mark, your flowery language notwithstanding, you have no idea what you are talking about. The fact that money changed hands is not the only test. This is not the time/place for you to learn about contract law, but I could pay someone a million dollars cash and have a one-million page, duly executed contract and it would matter not if it appeared that the consideration was inadequate. Or if there was fraud involved. Or misrepresentations in the contract itself. Or, or, or, or, or. Your "voluntary acquiescence" concept would be ripped to shreds as meaningless in any courtroom. You should try to avoid making such grandiose pronouncements when you are woefully unfamiliar with the subject you purport to be an authority on.

[Mark A. Baker]

It's just amazing to me.

That they are going down this road. ...

It serves two purposes.

1. It aids in denigrating Debbie among the church scientology community.

2. It serves to intimidate others who might otherwise also choose to speak out.


Arguably the second is the more important goal from the strategic perspective of the church.


Mark A. Baker

[ClearEyed]

yea agreed, she gets no pass on any bulllshit like that.

It's a mad organization, imagine the bullshit dozens of ex Int Base staff are sitting on, all the BS they've racked up.

Even though it all stinks, and the rules seem to perpetuate them degrading each other and falling into this hazing and abusing each other, staff mainly, there have been countless pockets of less abuse and even points of decency.

The whole mess seems destined not to just collapse, though, even if Miscavige were to die of lung cancer himself, he smoked a lot, I think he's quit now.

The rule system is intense, it keeps staff stuck in the Hubbard ruts.

All the "evil" staff can get kicked out or blow, but still those left have to fend off the Hubbard conflicting rules and abusive predicaments the rules cause them.

They don't just have a hell of a time with Miscavige, they unwitting have a hell of a time with the Hubbard rules that make them into slaves to the system (scapegoat each other, wrongly label one another with the myriad negative labels Hubbard left them to label each other with).

All very true, Chuck. I left when I realized that with very few exceptions all those advancing to higher posts were becoming bullies. I didn't want to be like that, nor did I want to be the ever-bullied peon. I saw no way out but "out."

[Lulu Belle]

It serves two purposes.

1. It aids in denigrating Debbie among the church scientology community.

2. It serves to intimidate others who might otherwise also choose to speak out.


Arguably the second is the more important goal from the strategic perspective of the church.


Mark A. Baker

May be a crapshoot on COS' part.

If they lose, it may set the precedent that more people with gag orders will speak out.

[Mark A. Baker]

... There is nothing certain in litigation. The simple fact that a contract has been signed with proper consideration is not the end of a case, it is only the very beginning. ...

In the instance of violation of a non-disclosure agreement there isn't much to resolve. Was the agreement legally valid? Was the agreement violated? Questions of religious freedom are not directly relevant to voluntary commercial contract such as a non-disclosure agreement constitutes.

Coercion is relevant to validity of contract. So are matters of the specifics of agreement and whether what was agreed was within the limits of the law. Typically non-disclosure agreements are within the bounds of law. They are in fact quite common. That leaves the question of violation. That is also typically not difficult to determine.

Courts don't favor attempts to expand argument beyond the bounds of the specific issues in dispute. Separate complaints would need to be filed for other matters in contention. Such would be decided separately.

Enjoy your hissy fit much? :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker

[Lulu Belle]

Enjoy your hissy fit much? :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker

Why did you say that? That was not the tone of HH's post at all.

[GreyLensman]

Exactly.

By the way, it appears Marty was right. COS was planning on suing her. I would have to assume he had prior knowledge of this.

I'm not sure what the implications are: that Marty and Debbie really are in communication? That Marty has some kind of an inside track on things the church is planning to do?

The Church is predictable. They run on 1950's - 1970's policies never updated openly to any modern organizational standard (they can't, because it's already fucking perfect). They are required to sue.

Marty just sees the obvious here.

[Lulu Belle]

The Church is predictable. They run on 1950's - 1970's policies never updated openly to any modern organizational standard (they can't, because it's already fucking perfect). They are required to sue.

Marty just sees the obvious here.

Yeah, maybe. Others have said that, too.

But pretty much anyone who has been in the SO has signed some kind of non-disclosure. And many have spoken out and not gotten sued. And many have gotten a payout and spoken out and not gotten sued.

Including Rinder.

So, not necessarily a sure thing.

[Smilla]

If she's going to blab, she should blab everything - the whole thing. Start an avalanche. If she's going to get hammered in court, she might as well laugh her way through it.

"You're taking me to court over an email? Try this for size, then."

[Mark A. Baker]

Why did you say that? That was not the tone of HH's post at all.

I disagree.


Mark A. Baker

[GreyLensman]

Well, I don't think anyone ever accused the CoS of being fast learners. :melodramatic:

Maybe Hubbard should have given OSA some tech on deductive reasoning. But that was not to be......:whistling:


OSA would implode, with any real method of thinking...

(Sucking and popping noise...)

[Feral]

I feel the same. Somebody who did really bad stuff in the Cult shouldn't be awarded instant hero status the minute they walk out the door.

Errr, that would be most if us.

Or was it just me? :nervous:

[Smilla]

OSA would implode, with any real method of thinking...

"Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." - Syme - 1984 Orwell

[degraded being]

Marty did not take or get a penny.

Something other than money?

[Smilla]

Errr, that would be most if us.:nervous:

Very true. What I meant was that we shouldn't parade them through the streets, as a mini messiah in the way that some have been. She's not an angel or a devil - just another person who got her head messed up in a cult. Not hero material.

[Mark A. Baker]

If she's going to blab, she should blab everything - the whole thing. Start an avalanche. If she's going to get hammered in court, she might as well laugh her way through it.

"You're taking me to court over an email? Try this for size, then."

There's truth in what you say. The maximum judgement would most likely be fixed by the terms of the agreement. In the words of the old saw: she might as well be hanged for a lion as for a lamb.

Although, it's not clear that Debbie would be willing to say ALL that she knows. She has been loyal for many years. She has proceeded so far in a fashion which demonstrates continuing loyalty to the church as a whole, if not to the present management.


Mark A. Baker

[Panda Termint]

It serves two purposes.

1. It aids in denigrating Debbie among the church scientology community.

2. It serves to intimidate others who might otherwise also choose to speak out.


Arguably the second is the more important goal from the strategic perspective of the church.


Mark A. Baker
In my estimation, it also serves an even more important purpose, Mark;

The Debbie Cook email has been read and discussed extensively amongst still-in scientologists, the CofS had to take some form of action lest their silence be interpreted as tacit confirmation of the allegations made.

The OSA Briefing to scientologists probably doesn't touch on the exact nature of the lawsuit, it's probably being used as another guhg-ho fund-raising call-to-arms with the catch-cry, "we're suing her ass!".

(apologies for the hyphen overdose!)

The fact that she's being sued will reassure the sheeple (for a while).

[degraded being]

I largely agree with this and your earlier take, and wouldn't be at all surprised to see the case roll out as you predict, but I think there's a legitimate question of whether she actually violated the NDA. After rereading her email against the NDA and the lawsuit, I get the sense that Cook wrote the email with the NDA in mind and, adopting a narrow reading of the NDA, attempted to not violate it. If the NDA is read broadly, and a court adopts the broadest meaning of "disparage" then it'll probably be found that she violated it. Getting there will likely be an excruciating, line-by-line assessment, and I don't think anyone can say for certain how it'll come out. It's close.

Also, there are things in the agreement that are standard, and then there are things that raise eyebrows and suggest perhaps an argument for unconscionability. One of them is the highly unconventional non-mutual arbitration clause. If Cook/Baumgarten have a dispute arising from the agreement, they're required to seek redress by "binding ecclesiastical arbitration", meaning that if they have a problem with Scientology, a Scientology IJC will decide the matter. Sound fair? Even the drafter of the NDA realized how ridiculous that is, and provided a second solution (a legitimate neutral arbitrator) if Cook can't resolve the matter in "ecclesiastical arbitration" (you think?). And Scientology, of course, isn't bound by arbitration, they can just go to court. The point is that an argument could be made that such a one-sided clause renders the NDA invalid.

To address a point I keep seeing, yes, you can sell your free speech rights, they are waivable, and if Cook's case relies on that argument, she'll lose. Which is one reason I suggested the affirmative defense that this is a non-justiciable religious dispute, and not a contract dispute. If successful, the technical inquiry of whether Cook/Baumgartner violated their NDAs wouldn't matter. Up until she sent the email, Cook considered herself a Scientologist in good standing, as did Scientology (unless I'm mistaken), which may distinguish this matter from typical NDAs where the parties sever their relationship for good. So not only is the content of the email largely "religious", but the nature of the parties' relationship at the time remained Church -> Parishioner; not Church -> Ex-Church-Employee. If viewed through this lens, the NDA could be read restrictively to only prohibit Cook from disclosing privileged and confidential information learned in her capacity as a church officer, and permit her to continue to voice her concerns on religious matters.

The religion sword cuts both ways, and at some point Independents are going to have to use it against Scientology. This seems like a pretty good opportunity.

Not only was it a church-parishioner relationship as opposed to church ex-employee, but actually she never was an "employee" either. They are volunteers!

[Feral]

If she's going to blab, she should blab everything - the whole thing. Start an avalanche. If she's going to get hammered in court, she might as well laugh her way through it.

"You're taking me to court over an email? Try this for size, then."

The cult appears to have pre-empted that and gotten a court issued interim gag order.

I wouldn't be game to test that, not without deep pockets.

[Panda Termint]

Errr, that would be most if us.

Or was it just me? :nervous:
It was just you! :biggrin:

[Mark A. Baker]

Marty did not take or get a penny.

That is possibly true. On the other hand, Marty spent the better part of 30 years putting others through sheer hell. Arguably they didn't need to pay him off because he was implicated in many of the crimes he was capable of exposing. He's been very circumspect since leaving about potentially exposing himself to criminal charges for his own past actions, just as he has been eager to trash talk publicly his former buddy and co-conspirator, Miscavige .


Mutually shared interest can be a powerful reason for continuing silence.


Mark A. Baker

[Mark A. Baker]

In my estimation, it also serves an even more important purpose, Mark;

The Debbie Cook email has been read and discussed extensively amongst still-in scientologists, the CofS had to take some form of action lest their silence be interpreted as tacit confirmation of the allegations made.

The OSA Briefing to scientologists probably doesn't touch on the exact nature of the lawsuit, it's probably being used as another guhg-ho fund-raising call-to-arms with the catch-cry, "we're suing her ass!".

(apologies for the hyphen overdose!)

The fact that she's being sued will reassure the sheeple (for a while).

Well put. :thumbsup:


Mark A. Baker

[Rene Descartes]

In the instance of violation of a non-disclosure agreement there isn't much to resolve. Was the agreement legally valid? Was the agreement violated? Questions of religious freedom are not directly relevant to voluntary commercial contract such as a non-disclosure agreement constitutes.

Coercion is relevant to validity of contract. So are matters of the specifics of agreement and whether what was agreed was within the limits of the law. Typically non-disclosure agreements are within the bounds of law. They are in fact quite common. That leaves the question of violation. That is also typically not difficult to determine.

Courts don't favor attempts to expand argument beyond the bounds of the specific issues in dispute. Separate complaints would need to be filed for other matters in contention. Such would be decided separately.

Enjoy your hissy fit much? :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker

Mr Baker,

Since I have also myself been involved with contractual disputes and litigation I am afraid that I am going to have to call your bluff on this one.

Are you aware that there are certain things that one can bet on regarding contracts and this rule is applicable in all 50 states in this great country.

When there is any doubt about whether something is valid or not within a contract the general ruling is that the ruling goes in favor of the little Joe Schmuck instead of the big corporate gang banger. The reason being (and I am sure that Mr HH might be able to shed more light on this based on his knowledge) is that the corporate gang banger has all the big attornies avaiable and Joe Schmuck regardless of whatever business savy that one claims Joe Schmuck has, is only Joe Schmuck and does not have an attorney to represent him therefore Joe Schmuck in theory could be considered easy game.

Of course that assumes that the case ever gets to that point where a ruling of that nature can be ruled upon. My prediction is that the Church does not wnat it to go that far.

Of utmost importance here is the following...

Now where did I put that LRH reference?

Mr Veda will you please once again post the refenece about the purpose of a lawsuit being to harass, or some such along those lines to ruin. If Mr Veda is not available will someone else please post that wonderful piece of LRH procedure again.

That reference is the watchword and standing order #1 in this whole situation.

I base my assertion on my knowledge of contracts and litigation cases that I have worked on throughout my post Church of Scientology career.

You might be wondering why someone who purports to have mathematical skill would have anything to do with legal contracts and litigation but please keep in mind that mathematical skill is needed sometimes to draw up some contract statements, state monetary rules within a contract and determine the value of pursuit of a court case versus taking a settlement and even other odds and ends.

This is big corporate Scientology against the little person, the Joe Schmuck who in this incarnation happens to be one Debbie Cook and two Mr Baumgarten.

The purpose is to harass and sue. There in no intention to win money nor stop future release of all what she alledgedly communicated. The purpose is to ruin her.

They are applying pure LRH rules to the matter even if doing so makes them look like a big doofus in the eyes of the world.

This is Scientology.

And the sad thing is we can't say that this is Scientology on drugs.

It is just plain and simple

It is Scientology.

Rd00

[Gadfly]

Mr Veda will you please once again post the refenece about the purpose of a lawsuit being to harass, or some such along those lines to ruin. If Mr Veda is not available will someone else please post that wonderful piece of LRH procedure again.



Our own wonderful Infinite posted it on page 5 of this thread (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26119-Co-sues-Debbie-Cook-in-Texas&p=654253&viewfull=1#post654253).


"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." - L. Ron Dickhead

They want to get her to STOP whatever it is that she is doing that pisses them off. If she will do that before it goes to trial, and "settle", that will work for the C of S. They are going to SILENCE her. Also, if DM is mad enough, he might toss in a little "vengeance" into the mix, and use his money and attorneys to try to "ruin her uttterly", just for the fun of it.

[Smilla]

There's truth in what you say. The maximum judgement would most likely be fixed by the terms of the agreement. In the words of the old saw: she might as well be hanged for a lion as for a lamb.

Although, it's not clear that Debbie would be willing to say ALL that she knows. She has been loyal for many years. She has proceeded so far in a fashion which demonstrates continuing loyalty to the church as a whole, if not to the present management.


Mark A. Baker

She wants reform, she says. Personally speaking, I don't think that Cof$ could be reformed, but for there to be a chance of it, enough of the ugly stuff would need to be out to provide the impetus for change. That's my thinking anyway. The "Mr Miscavige isn't very nice, you know" stuff isn't worth much. Visions of the FBI arriving at Int and placing him under arrest. "David Miscavige, I am arresting you for 500 counts of not being a very nice guy."

http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/eliot-ness-al-capone-slice.jpg

[GreyLensman]

I, personally, would love to stand in a trash can at the Scientology HQ,
with a sign hanging from my neck saying "I AM A LESBIAN", while fellow
Scientology's top executives pouring water on me and shouting kinky things
in my face. If this is not like totally hot, I don't know what is... :melodramatic: :biggrin:

So Miscavige paid Debbie to do Gold, so to speak. To stand in a trash can and be abused for his amusement. Miscavige probably laughed like crazy, thinking of it exactly in these degrading terms.

I do believe in karma. I do believe that a person's goodness creates space and affection and love, and the evil Miscavige is doing is truly creating a hell on earth where he is certain he is the only one seeing this whole game here. Not just narcissistic but psychopathic.

One ugly motherfucker. (Schwartzenegger in Predator).

[degraded being]

If she's going to blab, she should blab everything - the whole thing. Start an avalanche. If she's going to get hammered in court, she might as well laugh her way through it.

"You're taking me to court over an email? Try this for size, then."

Debbie Debbie, little Star,
how I wonder what you are
Up above the Church so high,
Like a kamikaze in the sky
Debbie Debbie little Star
how I wonder what you are.....

[GreyLensman]

The cult claims there were emails from Wayne, using Debbie's email account, claiming to be involved in sending out the emails.

Whether this is true, or more OSA crap, they're trying to assert Wayne had a conspiratorial role in Deb's actions and made no attempts to stop it, thus violating the NDA that he signed.

I vote more OSA crap.

[degraded being]

Debbie Debbie, little Star,
how I wonder what you are
Up above the Church so high,
Like a kamikaze in the sky
Debbie Debbie little Star
how I wonder what you are.....

Alternative:
Debbie Debbie, little Star,
how I wonder what you are
Up above the Church so high,
Like a suicide bomber in the sky
Debbie Debbie little Star
how I wonder what you are....

[Mirele]

If she's going to blab, she should blab everything - the whole thing. Start an avalanche. If she's going to get hammered in court, she might as well laugh her way through it.

"You're taking me to court over an email? Try this for size, then."

Hmm. This is kind of the "300" defense, no? You'll die, but be remembered forever.

[Rene Descartes]

There's truth in what you say. The maximum judgement would most likely be fixed by the terms of the agreement. In the words of the old saw: she might as well be hanged for a lion as for a lamb.

Although, it's not clear that Debbie would be willing to say ALL that she knows. She has been loyal for many years. She has proceeded so far in a fashion which demonstrates continuing loyalty to the church as a whole, if not to the present management.


Mark A. Baker

I really hate saying this in front of everybody but I am saying it also for their sake of understanding these things.

The remarks in your first paragraph where you talk about maxium judgement is missing something very important regarding maximum judgement rules which differ by states.

So I have to ask you two things.

1. Why do you refer to the use of "maximum judgement" as if it is a sky is the limit amount when the lawsuit states specific monetary amounts that are being sought?

2. With whatever knowledge you have on contractual disputes would you like to take a guess as to why the Church might "only" be asking for the specific amount mentioned in the lawsuit? I am not concerned with a totally correct answer here. I am just curious to see if you will land on or near the green on this one.

Regardless of all the things said by me, others and yourself I prefer that you continue to speak and give out your thoughts on what might transpire as it opens the floor for vivid discussion and brings about enlightenment to some regarding the court system here in this country as well as contract law.

Even if I don't agree with something you say I want you to speak after all this is a forum and we are all in this together and whether or not we are all holding hands on everything we have much to teach ourseleves and each other.

Praise Jesus, say Hallajuyah! Amen! And Hip Hip Hooray!

Rd00

[Smilla]

So Miscavige paid Debbie to do Gold, so to speak. To stand in a trash can and be abused for his amusement. Miscavige probably laughed like crazy, thinking of it exactly in these degrading terms.

I do believe in karma. I do believe that a person's goodness creates space and affection and love, and the evil Miscavige is doing is truly creating a hell on earth where he is certain he is the only one seeing this whole game here. Not just narcissistic but psychopathic.

One ugly motherfucker. (Schwartzenegger in Predator).

I had a lovely talk with my mother this evening about money, and material things, and what in life has real value.

She said "If you have an innocence of being, curiosity about life, a liking of people, and a feeling of sweetness inside, you have everything."

Miscavige is sitting in his castle, but really he has nothing.

[Mark A. Baker]

... Are you aware that there are certain things that one can bet on regarding contracts and this rule is applicable in all 50 states in this great country.

...

Of course that assumes that the case ever gets to that point where a ruling of that nature can be ruled upon. My prediction is that the Church does not wnat it to go that far. ...


What you say is certainly true of cases that go to trial by jury. Overwhelmingly most cases are settled long before ever going near a jury on questions of law.

Cases which go to jury are not the rule. Keeping cases away from juries is very much an aspect of legal tactics as lawyers and judges recognize that juries can be rather messy and effectively seek to decide matters independently of what the law may be. Cases only go to jury when both sides think its worth the risk of taking them to jury trial, and the judge has agreed that their is a case to be decided. Most of the time, no.


Mark A. Baker

[degraded being]

That is possibly true. On the other hand, Marty spent the better part of 30 years putting others through sheer hell. Arguably they didn't need to pay him off because he was implicated in many of the crimes he was capable of exposing. He's been very circumspect since leaving about potentially exposing himself to criminal charges for his own past actions, just as he has been eager to trash talk publicly his former buddy and co-conspirator, Miscavige .


Mutually shared interest can be a powerful reason for continuing silence.


Mark A. Baker

How do you know it's true that Marty did not get a penny. Is that what he said?
And if it is true should it be taken very literally...he did not get a penny

EDIT. Yes, I see, you said it is possibly true.........

[Panda Termint]

I had a lovely talk with my mother this evening about money, and material things, and what in life has real value.

She said "If you have an innocence of being, curiosity about life, a liking of people, and a feeling of sweetness inside, you have everything."

Miscavige is sitting in his castle, but really he has nothing.



Wise Mother is VERY wise! :)

[tikk]

You're right, Mick. Nor is appeal to religious freedom a viable defense. The only thing that is relevant is whether she entered voluntarily into a contractural arrangement and subsequently violated the terms of the agreement. A court would likely rule that receipt and retention of the money is a pretty clear indicator of voluntary acquiescence. The question of violation of contract then becomes the determining factor.


Mark A. Baker

I suspect you have a basis for your contention that a free exercise argument would not be a viable defense, though you failed to elaborate beyond stating such as fact. As affirmative defenses go, those of the constitutional variety tend to be complete affirmative defenses; i.e., a successful showing negates the issue of liability, however strongly it favored the plaintiff. It would be senseless not to make it the centerpiece of a motion to dismiss.

[Free to shine]

I had a lovely talk with my mother this evening about money, and material things, and what in life has real value.

She said "If you have an innocence of being, curiosity about life, a liking of people, and a feeling of sweetness inside, you have everything."

Miscavige is sitting in his castle, but really he has nothing.




I think I love your mother. :)

[Lulu Belle]

I suspect you have a basis for your contention that a free exercise argument would not be a viable defense, though you failed to elaborate beyond stating such as fact. As affirmative defenses go, those of the constitutional variety tend to be complete affirmative defenses; i.e., a successful showing negates the issue of liability, however strongly it favored the plaintiff. It would be senseless not to make it the centerpiece of a motion to dismiss.

Can you please explain?

[Jquepublic]

There's truth in what you say. The maximum judgement would most likely be fixed by the terms of the agreement. In the words of the old saw: she might as well be hanged for a lion as for a lamb.

Although, it's not clear that Debbie would be willing to say ALL that she knows. She has been loyal for many years. She has proceeded so far in a fashion which demonstrates continuing loyalty to the church as a whole, if not to the present management.


Mark A. Baker

It's true she's still apparently loyal to her religious beliefs, but that's what makes me think she will sing - within the cult mindset, SPs are very real things and if anyone fits their definition, it's Miscavige. I think she's set her sights on him. Lord knows she has every reason to after the abuse she endured at his whim.

She wants to reform her church, but that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. She's already made international news of this thing. Gotta admire the big way she went about it!

I never knew her personally of course, but I have met her and she struck me as an intelligent and strong willed woman. I don't think Miscavige broke her spirit. If he did, she'd still be in.

I want her to take her shot! No matter the size of the monster, cut off the head and the body will soon fall. :eyeroll:

[Rene Descartes]

What you say is certainly true of cases that go to trial by jury. Overwhelmingly most cases are settled long before ever going near a jury on questions of law.

Cases which go to jury are not the rule. Keeping cases away from juries is very much an aspect of legal tactics as lawyers and judges recognize that juries can be rather messy and effectively seek to decide matters independently of what the law may be. Cases only go to jury when both sides think its worth the risk of taking them to jury trial, and the judge has agreed that their is a case to be decided. Most of the time, no.


Mark A. Baker

I just don't get it. There is something very odd about your reply.

I have a friend who was exceptional at programming bots to reply to conversations and what you typed almost strikes me as something that this type of bot would reply.

Oh well, in that case this leads me to ask you this.

1) Would you say that the Church has the most to lose in this case if somehow Debbie Cooks lawyer after Summary Judgement is ruled out, if her lawyer requests there be no discussion of settlment and that the case be immediatly brought to a jury trial?

2) If #1 occured would you think the next actions by the Church would be to reduce the damages sought rather than have it go to trial?

Rd00

[Mark A. Baker]

... 1. Why do you refer to the use of "maximum judgement" as if it is a sky is the limit amount when the lawsuit states specific monetary amounts that are being sought?

My point is that there is a limit to what she can be asked to forfeit for non-compliance under the terms of her prior agreement. Practically speaking she's in a position of 'in for a penny, in for a pound'.

What the church seeks in their filing is a part of their tactics of litigation; intended as both a plausible claim of damage sustained by violation of the agreement as well as useful for intimidation of others. They aren't after the money. They are making a statement about omerta.


Mark A. Baker

[Winston Smith]

Wise Mother is VERY wise! :)

Most all Jewish mothers are wise.

[GreyLensman]

It's just amazing to me.

That they are going down this road.

The email has been sent, broadcasted by the media, distributed by thousands of individuals and websites and news sites. The toothpaste is well out of the tube.

Suing her just stirs all of it up all over again, rather than just letting it be "yesterday's news".

What benefit could COS possibly derive from the results of this lawsuit? It can't possibly be PR, that's for sure.

this was mentioned before - the benefit is partly to handle the membership. It creates another "crisis", another Religious Freedom Crusade, lets march on San Antonio, a sense of urgency - it's "Make-A-Crisis".

The membership EXPECTS it - they read LRH policy and they see that suing the attacker is exactly what is required and they would be shocked as hell and see it as "squirrel" if a live-and-let-live softness ever came through. This is "win or die in the attempt".

Sad as hell, but this is partly about ruining Debbie but also about reaping (raping?) the membership dollars yet again.

[tikk]

Can you please explain?

Lulu, an affirmative defense basically admits the facts alleged, but argues that the admitted conduct was justified by some overriding concern. The classic example is self-defense to murder. Here, the concept is that, yes, Cook in fact breached the agreement but the content of her email is by its nature religious, and thus enjoys free exercise protection; further, for the court to interpret the agreement would require it to effectively pick a side in what amounts to a religious dispute, impermissibly entangling the court with religious doctrine in violation of Lemon et al.

[Rene Descartes]

My point is that there is a limit to what she can be asked to forfeit for non-compliance under the terms of her prior agreement. Practically speaking she's in a position of 'in for a penny, in for a pound'.

What the church seeks in their filing is a part of their tactics of litigation; intended as both a plausible claim of damage sustained by violation of the agreement as well as useful for intimidation of others. They aren't after the money. They are making a statement about omerta.


Mark A. Baker

I am not going to say that you landed near the green with those two paragraphs.

Well okay you did land near the green however it is the green for the hole on the fairway next to the one I was looking to see how close you would land to.

Nah, whereas your statement about limits are not necessarily false they weren't the answers that I was testing you on and they do not include nor imply something very important regarding limits and the clue I gave was that the rules differ by states.

But not to worry beause the case will never get that far. I was just curious as to your kowlege about limits seeing as how you brought up some talk about limits.

Rd00

[NonScio]

According to the Tampa Newspaper article, Cook/Maumgarten (among other
things) "They waived their First Amendment rights to free speech."

If a court upholds a private contract wherein one party "waives" a right
guaranteed under the Constitution'...such as 1st Amendment "free speech", could it then also uphold a 13th Amendment (Slavery) where one contract party can
waive his/her right not to be placed in involuntary servitude; i.e. enforce a slavery contract?

It is true that high corporate executives are commonly "bought off" with
handsome ($multimillion severances in many cases) financial packages when
they leave a company....in exchange they sign agreements not to disclose
certain trade secrets for several years. The courts would probably uphold these.
Would the courts however uphold contractual promises never to reveal evidence of crimes the "bought off" party may be privy to? I hardly think so.

[GreyLensman]

Hmm. This is kind of the "300" defense, no? You'll die, but be remembered forever.

You will smash your name into history!

[Mimsey Borogrove]

What about the laws regarding whistle blowers?
Whistle blower laws and other laws that that have provisions for employer retaliation protection are enforced by a number of government agencies. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and its divisions enforce several major laws that directly protect whistle blowers or have provisions to shield employees from retaliation, for reporting violations of the laws, refusing to engage in any action made unlawful by the laws, or participating in any proceedings under the laws. If she is considered a volunteer, do they apply? Can they trump contract law? Could she counter sue on these grounds?
Mimsey

[scooter]

Lots of speculation here - long thread is long.:omg:

Me? I think there will be surprises that no-one has thought of and I'm just gonna settle back and :drama:

Hasn't it been just an amazing first month of the year for cult-bashing?:happydance:

Oh, and I'm gonna see if I can help Debbie and Wayne with anything - I reckon we all should.:yes:

[Veda]

Lots of speculation here - long thread is long.:omg:

Me? I think there will be surprises that no-one has thought of and I'm just gonna settle back and :drama:

Hasn't it been just an amazing first month of the year for cult-bashing?:happydance:

Oh, and I'm gonna see if I can help Debbie and Wayne with anything - I reckon we all should.:yes:

Is there an address where contributions, and advice, can be sent directly to Debbie? I heard she has an old fashioned P.O. Box.

Doe she want donations?, or donations only from those "in good stabding?," or will she accept donations from anyone?

[Jquepublic]

Is there an address where contributions, and advice, can be sent directly to Debbie? I heard she has an old fashioned P.O. Box.

Doe she want donations?, or donations only from those "in good stabding?," or will she accept donations from anyone?

She has a website set up if you want to check it out (http://www.debbiecookbaumgarten.com/)

Or copy and paste: http://www.debbiecookbaumgarten.com/

[degraded being]

Is there an address where contributions, and advice, can be sent directly to Debbie? I heard she has an old fashioned P.O. Box.

Doe she want donations?, or donations only from those "in good stabding?," or will she accept donations from anyone?

My guess is she has fully adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.... :)
And boy, is she getting stategic advantage on that!

[Mark A. Baker]

... But not to worry beause the case will never get that far. I was just curious as to your kowlege about limits seeing as how you brought up some talk about limits.

Rd00

I'm not a lawyer, never claimed it and I don't offer legal advice. I'm strictly commenting as an independent analyst. I don't see a specific award amount as being conceptually important in this matter. Of course, I'm not the one being asked to ante up, either. What matters is the presence of a limit, more than the specific amount. That as you indicate, is subject to the terms of the agreement and the jurisdiction in which the case is filed.

I agree. I doubt very much that this case will go to trial. It would not serve the interest of the church to take it that far. The lawyers on both sides will likely recommend that some settlement is reached. On her side because evidence supports the conclusion that she willfully violated a valid contract; not a good basis to go to court. On theirs because it does not serve the real interests of the church for this case to go all the way to trial. There is such a thing as Pyrrhic victory.


Mark A. Baker

[Sindy]

Lots of speculation here - long thread is long.:omg:

Me? I think there will be surprises that no-one has thought of and I'm just gonna settle back and :drama:

Hasn't it been just an amazing first month of the year for cult-bashing?:happydance:

Oh, and I'm gonna see if I can help Debbie and Wayne with anything - I reckon we all should.:yes:

Even though I agree with Mick's earlier stated sentiments, I still think we should help. I don't know Debbie personally. I have little knowledge of what she did or didn't do during her 17 year reign as Flag's Captain.

To me it's more about principle. I believe that we have the opportunity to see the C of S greatly exposed in a way never before possible. I would hate to see this end only in harassment and ruin for Debbie and Wayne simply because the C of S has the resources and they do not.

A united front against the monster is needed, in my opinion, to help bring about the best result. I'm in.

[Mick Wenlock]

I'm reading some of the responses to the article on the Village Voice blog.

Thought this one was interesting.

From Gerald Plourde:

I'm not sure that the COS can prove that a breach of the agreement occurred.

Point 1 - Debbie Cook only disseminated her email to fellow Scientologists and has been diligent in her efforts to stop publication by others.

Point 2 - The activities she describes and the documents she cites (Policy Memos not religious texts) would appear to be things that would be common knowledge to her intended recipients. You can't disclose what everyone already knows.

Point 3 - Unless the COS can show definitive proof that the LRH statements she quotes are to be interpreted other than the way Ms. Cook has interpreted them, it will be extremely difficult to maintain that she is disparaging Scientology. The church management may have to disclose far more information than they would like to show that their actions regarding the high pressure selling of courses and materials are countenanced by the written policies. Is there a published policy that clearly states that Scientologists are requires to open their wallets and checkbooks on demand?

Point 4 - If no breach has occurred, the COS may have exposed itself to a subsequent suit by Ms. Cook and her husband for abuse of the legal process.

The CofS needs to prove that it has a case to be answered, it's not just a case of walking into court and being able to just demand that it all happens. Come on. They have to present a prima facie presentation showing that there is a case to be answered if they do not then it does not proceed to even the start of a trial.

Yes there are points that can be made, but for example - disparaging the Management of the Church - by hubbard's own words - is disparaging Scientology. But be that as it may - I believe that it will come down to simple steps - was there a contract and was it breached. The CofS does not have to "prove" that the whole email is a breach - all it need do is prove that parts of it violate her written agreements.

If it were that easy to nail the CofS for abuse of the legal process they would have been bankrupted years ago

[HelluvaHoax!]

In the instance of violation of a non-disclosure agreement there isn't much to resolve. Was the agreement legally valid? Was the agreement violated? Questions of religious freedom are not directly relevant to voluntary commercial contract such as a non-disclosure agreement constitutes.

Coercion is relevant to validity of contract. So are matters of the specifics of agreement and whether what was agreed was within the limits of the law. Typically non-disclosure agreements are within the bounds of law. They are in fact quite common. That leaves the question of violation. That is also typically not difficult to determine.

Courts don't favor attempts to expand argument beyond the bounds of the specific issues in dispute. Separate complaints would need to be filed for other matters in contention. Such would be decided separately.

Enjoy your hissy fit much? :eyeroll:

Mark A. Baker


I see how it works now. Someone clearly points out your expert pronouncements about law are quite amateurish and misinformed.

You compound the mistake by getting up at the lectern and stridently sermonizing with even more flowery language and paragraphs of the same legal buffoonery.

And you try to cure the embarrassment by insults--trying to make it look like someone else has an emotional problem.

Cool. I am sure that everyone reading your expert treatise on how a courtroom works is very impressed.

[freethinker]

So an Orthodox Scientologist is brain dead?:coolwink:
"Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." - Syme - 1984 Orwell

[freethinker]

They'll also understand that they can't follow policy and be safe.
In my estimation, it also serves an even more important purpose, Mark;

The Debbie Cook email has been read and discussed extensively amongst still-in scientologists, the CofS had to take some form of action lest their silence be interpreted as tacit confirmation of the allegations made.

The OSA Briefing to scientologists probably doesn't touch on the exact nature of the lawsuit, it's probably being used as another guhg-ho fund-raising call-to-arms with the catch-cry, "we're suing her ass!".

(apologies for the hyphen overdose!)

The fact that she's being sued will reassure the sheeple (for a while).

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker
You're right, Mick. Nor is appeal to religious freedom a viable defense. The only thing that is relevant is whether she entered voluntarily into a contractural arrangement and subsequently violated the terms of the agreement. A court would likely rule that receipt and retention of the money is a pretty clear indicator of voluntary acquiescence. The question of violation of contract then becomes the determining factor. Mark A. Baker



I suspect you have a basis for your contention that a free exercise argument would not be a viable defense, though you failed to elaborate beyond stating such as fact. As affirmative defenses go, those of the constitutional variety tend to be complete affirmative defenses; i.e., a successful showing negates the issue of liability, however strongly it favored the plaintiff. It would be senseless not to make it the centerpiece of a motion to dismiss.


Thank God. Someone who actually knows what they are talking about. LOL

[freethinker]

Now see this is probably the real game here, to shut her up and keep her that way for as long as possible until they get the resrt of the hen house uder control.

A bonus being that they bleed her of money and run her ragged.
The cult appears to have pre-empted that and gotten a court issued interim gag order.

I wouldn't be game to test that, not without deep pockets.

[freethinker]

The church will take IAS donations from anyone,but that is not official church policy.
Is there an address where contributions, and advice, can be sent directly to Debbie? I heard she has an old fashioned P.O. Box.

Doe she want donations?, or donations only from those "in good stabding?," or will she accept donations from anyone?

[MostlyLurker]

Do we know what Debbie's phisical condition was or is, and why the Church didn't provide her with proper medical care?

Do we know if it was Debbie's choice to leave the SO or if she was forced to in any way by Co$/Miscavige?

That may also matter.

[MostlyLurker]

Why the FBI do nothing???

I mean, that NDA it's a clear sign that the Co$ is actively hiding something, and they pretty much knows what already. Why they do nothing?

Why America export democracy with bombs worldwide and then act itself as a corrupt system?

FBI, are you a corrupt organization? Why don't you move your ass?

[degraded being]

Even though I agree with Mick's earlier stated sentiments, I still think we should help. I don't know Debbie personally. I have little knowledge of what she did or didn't do during her 17 year reign as Flag's Captain.

To me it's more about principle. I believe that we have the opportunity to see the C of S greatly exposed in a way never before possible. I would hate to see this end only in harassment and ruin for Debbie and Wayne simply because the C of S has the resources and they do not.

A united front against the monster is needed, in my opinion, to help bring about the best result. I'm in.


The COS is being exposed. But Debbie might want as little of that as possible. Debbie's own "ideal scene" would be for the shit stirring in and out of the court to result in DM being stopped mis-applying Ron's pure tek. In the unlikely event she achieved that can you imagine Debbie being thanked for getting FLAG "back on source" and using money from anti scientologists and SPs to do it?

It might be worth contributing to Debbie's fund, but it really is a case of not knowing what you're paying for. So far it's a holy religious undertaking. If we were guaranteed that Saint Debbie was going to get all personal and nasty at DM or the COS, then she might just want to expose dirty secrets and crimes by both DM and the COS in general. If she continues her holy undertaking, then she will take DM's little legs off only with his failures to do what Ron said should be done, resulting in bugger all exposure of the real problems.

And it may be a case of the more money she has, the more power she will have to maintain the holy undertaking, both as her brainwashed delusion and as a viable real life path to where she wants to go.

[Mark A. Baker]

... I mean, that NDA it's a clear sign that the Co$ is actively hiding something, and they pretty much knows what already. Why they do nothing? ...

No it isn't. NDA's are a standard feature of u.s. business activity.


Mark A. Baker

[MostlyLurker]

No it isn't. NDA's are a standard feature of u.s. business activity.


Mark A. Baker

We are dealing with a supposed church, not business activity.

[Mimsey Borogrove]

You know, there may be no real strategy originating from the top other than "sue the Goddamn Bitch!!!" And then it is a matter of doing what your were told and suing the GD Bitch. Much like Der Miscavige's other well planned actions - Freedom mag rants, slapping people around, sending boat people to Casa Blanca, and many others I have forgotten. That may be all it is about, making her f**king wrong, making her pay, squashing her for having the temerity to fart in his general direction.

And then he will micro-manage the legal team, and hopefully, screw it up. It must be nice to have the First Amendment to keep you warm at night.

Mimsey

[Mark A. Baker]

We are dealing with a supposed church, not business activity.

Not relevant. NDA's are contract law. Religious institutions use them too. They do not require a separate category of law.


Mark A. Baker

[degraded being]

I see how it works now. Someone clearly points out your expert pronouncements about law are quite amateurish and misinformed.

You compound the mistake by getting up at the lectern and stridently sermonizing with even more flowery language and paragraphs of the same legal buffoonery.

And you try to cure the embarrassment by insults--trying to make it look like someone else has an emotional problem.

Cool. I am sure that everyone reading your expert treatise on how a courtroom works is very impressed.

That's about it.

[Smurf]

It's just amazing to me. That they are going down this road.

What benefit could COS possibly derive from the results of this lawsuit? It can't possibly be PR, that's for sure.

The same can be asked of insurance companies when a policyholder is sued.. in many instances an insurance company will spend tens of thousands of dollars to fight a lawsuit rather than simply settle it for a much lesser amount. It's a case of wanting to be right.

If the cult can shut Debbie & Wayne down & "shudder them into silence", they will be held up as examples to others Scilons in the future who may wish to compromise their agreements with the cult.

[shadow]

Tikk commented that there may be a question whether this is a contract dispute or a religious dispute. In the case of a religious dispute, the court would be reluctant to get "entangled" in religious doctrine (refer to the recent SCOTUS decision).

When you look on page 7 (paragraph A) of the release that the CoS had Cook sign, there is a binding arbitration clause where Cook has agreed to resolve any disputes through "binding Scientology ecclesiastical arbitration under the authority of the International Justice Chief." This clause looks makes this look like a religious dispute if Cook has a problem with the release, but a breach (or threat to breach) allows legal remedies for COS (paragraph B on that page).

So CoS prevents access to the courts for Cook, but retains it for themselves.

I know, just one small part of the whole, but it makes an interesting can of worms.

[NoName]

Putting aside the legal issues in this area (I'm not an expert in this area - ask Graham Berry specifics), there is one thing I do know. The best way to air your dirty laundry is to file a lawsuit. :footbullet:

I also find it interesting that the Co$ would file in a real court when the arbitration clause would seem to benefit them the most.

[Petey C]

One thing that might hamper the CoS is the fact that given this little crisis and their known reactions to such, there will be a lotta lotta people creeping around who have summarily lost their posts and are either in the deepest of low ethics conditions or have hit the RPF. I'm betting there will be quite a few top jobs vacant and that's surely gonna slow things down. Not to mention the general fearful, distressed and tormented moods of most of the staff which will be hardly conducive to "high production".

[Sindy]

The COS is being exposed. But Debbie might want as little of that as possible. Debbie's own "ideal scene" would be for the shit stirring in and out of the court to result in DM being stopped mis-applying Ron's pure tek. In the unlikely event she achieved that can you imagine Debbie being thanked for getting FLAG "back on source" and using money from anti scientologists and SPs to do it?

It might be worth contributing to Debbie's fund, but it really is a case of not knowing what you're paying for. So far it's a holy religious undertaking. If we were guaranteed that Saint Debbie was going to get all personal and nasty at DM or the COS, then she might just want to expose dirty secrets and crimes by both DM and the COS in general. If she continues her holy undertaking, then she will take DM's little legs off only with his failures to do what Ron said should be done, resulting in bugger all exposure of the real problems.

And it may be a case of the more money she has, the more power she will have to maintain the holy undertaking, both as her brainwashed delusion and as a viable real life path to where she wants to go.

Can't say I can argue with you here. I really need to examine how I feel about all of this exactly.

Just because I am against the cult doesn't mean I am for efforts to reform it. I just absolutely hate to watch the church getting away with its thuggery but, is it really capable of becoming a kinder, gentler organization as long as it runs off LRH's policies where an enemy was seen around every corner?

Truth is, if someone came and asked me for a donation to the C of S, I would tell them to go jump in a lake.

My husband worked for 25 years straight for the church, during his most formative years where he should have been building a better future. His average W-2 over the 25 years was $6,000/year. That's $115.00 per week before taxes and he had to pay for his own rent, food, clothes, etc. which SO members don't have to pay. In addition, no one was cooking his food and doing his dishes, grocery shopping, laundry, etc.

I'm sure he had less disposable income than Debbie or any other SO member. He gave them 25 years of full-time service 9 am-10:30 pm most of those years. He got NOTHING when he left, not even a thank you.

Still, I think I'm going to help Debbie but, I am done wrapping my life and my attention around this atrocious cult. Both my husband and I have a lot of time to make up. So, even though I am still going to contribute to this motion, I am not going to get all wound up in it.

[BunnySkull]

Anyone find it interesting that the cult goes after Debbie in court, but not Mike and Marty who regularly and overtly criticize the cult every where they can? Not sure of Martys situation but we know Mike accepted $5,000 when he left and I'm sure both signed countless docs trying to ensure silence during their time in the SO - & esP. After Marty blew twice in the decade before his final departure.

Two years ago someone argued the Mike and Marty were the cults trash collectors - just getting the doubters, trouble makers and those not totally on board with following command intention unquestioningly out of way. Almost doing the cult a favor by culling the herd, taking the low hanging fruit. However Debbie aimed for their golden boys, trying to cherry pick. She directed her message at the faithful, the big donors, the OL in good standing and they all knew Debbie as Capt of FLO, so she is a real threat.

Also interesting to note that Debbie was over flag, in fact still pretty green as capt., during the McPherson murder. I wonder if her long tenure had anything to do with her knowledge of that tragedy, and the protection wore off after the statue of limitations and last lawsuits ended. (Her keeping a high ranking post for 15 plus years is virtually unheard of in the SO)

Anyway, food for thought. The cult must see Debbie as a very serious threat to take this step - more so than the M&M sideshow. I just hope she has all her ducks in a row, she will def need it.

[Sindy]

You know, there may be no real strategy originating from the top other than "sue the Goddamn Bitch!!!" And then it is a matter of doing what your were told and suing the GD Bitch. Much like Der Miscavige's other well planned actions - Freedom mag rants, slapping people around, sending boat people to Casa Blanca, and many others I have forgotten. That may be all it is about, making her f**king wrong, making her pay, squashing her for having the temerity to fart in his general direction.

And then he will micro-manage the legal team, and hopefully, screw it up. It must be nice to have the First Amendment to keep you warm at night.

Mimsey

I think you're right. Sending people with cameras on their heads, in golf carts, to lurk outside her home is so last year.

[Thrak]

Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health - A comedy by El Con Rubhard

AYFKM?

Where's the gun to the head emoticon? Or should I say foot?

[NoName]

Anyone find it interesting that the cult goes after Debbie in court, but not Mike and Marty who regularly and overtly criticize the cult every where they can? Not sure of Martys situation but we know Mike accepted $5,000 when he left and I'm sure both signed countless docs trying to ensure silence during their time in the SO - & esP. After Marty blew twice in the decade before his final departure.

Two years ago someone argued the Mike and Marty were the cults trash collectors - just getting the doubters, trouble makers and those not totally on board with following command intention unquestioningly out of way. Almost doing the cult a favor by culling the herd, taking the low hanging fruit. However Debbie aimed for their golden boys, trying to cherry pick. She directed her message at the faithful, the big donors, the OL in good standing and they all knew Debbie as Capt of FLO, so she is a real threat.

Also interesting to note that Debbie was over flag, in fact still pretty green as capt., during the McPherson murder. I wonder if her long tenure had anything to do with her knowledge of that tragedy, and the protection wore off after the statue of limitations and last lawsuits ended. (Her keeping a high ranking post for 15 plus years is virtually unheard of in the SO)

Anyway, food for thought. The cult must see Debbie as a very serious threat to take this step - more so than the M&M sideshow. I just hope she has all her ducks in a row, she will def need it.

Now that's juicy!

Hear that Davey? You definitely WANT to waive your arbitration clause and take this puppy to trial. Cause um you really want to get all this into a public record. Especially the part where you declared Lisa a Clear. Cause we've been taking bets about whal all Ms. Reitmann didn't manage to dig up.

[Div6]

Anyone find it interesting that the cult goes after Debbie in court, but not Mike and Marty who regularly and overtly criticize the cult every where they can? Not sure of Martys situation but we know Mike accepted $5,000 when he left and I'm sure both signed countless docs trying to ensure silence during their time in the SO - & esP. After Marty blew twice in the decade before his final departure.

....

Rinder walked while he was in London supposedly to handle Sweeney. So when did the cash deal go down?

As the anons say, Dox or GTFO...

[Freeminds]

The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.

The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.

Fat Ole Ron, "The Scientologist, a Manual on the Dissemination of Material", 1955

They can delete such passages from the 1991 Red Volumes, but Scientology shambles on in the same old manner. Only one midget and an army of lawyers and PIs get rich under Scientology: to sue is practically the only shot in their locker.

To anybody engaged in litigation with Scieno-bozos: stay the distance, enjoy their incompetence, collect out-of-court settlement, expect appeal... have a great life.

[DoneDeal]

Just because I am against the cult doesn't mean I am for efforts to reform it. I just absolutely hate to watch the church getting away with its thuggery but, is it really capable of becoming a kinder, gentler organization as long as it runs off LRH's policies where an enemy was seen around every corner?



No. See there is nothing to reform. The sweet goal of raising awareness of mankind isn't something that will happen with that outfit. No matter what it isn't fixable..because it really isn't broken. It is what it is.

So...I'm saying I agree with you...I don't have any desire to see the church "turn around" and be successful. I want it done in.

The people remaining will continue to spin that they are "on policy" now and things will be better....lol.

[Mystic]

Ms. Cook isn't a threat to anyone.

Scientology isn't a threat to anyone.

....

[DoneDeal]

Ms. Cook isn't a threat to anyone.

Scientology isn't a threat to anyone.

....




Whoa.....man....you just blew my mind.

Love the angles.

[Free to shine]

Another article:


Scientology's First Amendment rights and wrongs

In Print: Wednesday, February 1, 2012

The Church of Scientology relies heavily on First Amendment religious freedoms to shield itself from scrutiny in this country, but it is awfully quick to suppress freedom of speech that enjoys the same constitutional protections. The same church that raises the specter of Nazi oppression whenever it faces inquiry from German and French officials, expects its former, hardworking employees in the United States to sign away their free speech rights for as little as $500 in severance. The First Amendment is not a buffet where some rights are recognized and other inconvenient ones are ignored.

The hypocrisy is clear in the church's latest retaliation against a former employee who dared to speak out even as she attempted to provoke reforms from within. Debbie Cook, the church's former longtime leader in Clearwater, is now facing a lawsuit in Texas for allegedly violating her 2007 severance agreement. On New Year's Eve, her letter urging Scientologists to work internally to reform the church's aggressive fundraising tactics and other practices reached thousands of church members via email and became widely publicized, including in the Tampa Bay Times.


Full editorial: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1213244.ece

[Panda Termint]

Excellent! :thumbsup:

[Magoo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJEL3He3Y_w

Love to you all, and IF you're still "in", PLEASE Use L Ron Hubbard's
Final Policy:
The Way OUT *is* the
Neeeeeeeeeearest Dooooooooooooor:

Hey! He used it, why not YOU?
Bring ALL the docs, too.

Love to all :rose:

Tory/Magoo
www.youtube.com/ToryMagoo44

[Gottabrain]

Ah, Debbie. I couldn't resist logging in, too interested in this and I've been following all along. Sure hope she breaks out of her cult mindset and exposes the real crimes of COS - that piece of paper won't do a bit of good for them there.

And a bit of song & poetry for Debbie. So sorry this is happening:

From the song Court of the Crimson King, by King Crimson:

The keeper of the city keys
Put shutters on the dreams.
I wait outside the pilgrim's door
With insufficient schemes.
The black queen chants
the funeral march,
The cracked brass bells will ring;
To summon back the fire witch
To the court of the crimson king.

The gardener plants an evergreen
Whilst trampling on a flower.
I chase the wind of a prism ship
To taste the sweet and sour.
The pattern juggler lifts his hand;
The orchestra begin.
As slowly turns the grinding wheel
In the court of the crimson king.

On soft grey mornings widows cry,
The wise men share a joke;
I run to grasp divining signs
To satisfy the hoax.
The yellow jester does not play
But gently pulls the strings
And smiles as the puppets dance
In the court of the crimson king.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53q2YuKGejc

Best of luck to you, Debbie. We'll all be here for you when you are ready to do some real damage, and ready to support you and pick you back up again when/if you can break through the mindset and see what's been done to you and others for what it is. We are not Scientology. We have compassion.

[Stat]

Please ask Marty to make that $50,000 check payable to the Church of Hoaxology for this initial consultation. :biggrin:

Should I submit it as a CSW or a Purchase Order?

Seriously though, I hope Debbie will win this battle.

This can be very big.

[Veda]

They can delete such passages from the 1991 Red Volumes, but Scientology shambles on in the same old manner.

-snip-



Yes, in 1991, this part of the March 1955 'Manual on Dissemination of Material' was removed from all public versions of that document, notably the Red Volumes. Some other embarrassing or problematic statements were also removed, here and there, and this is one of the things that the outside the CoS Scientologists complain about. "Miscavige is altering LRH tech!" etc.

Of course, there really is no need for panic amongst the more pure Scientologists, concerned that Scientology is wandering off-Source, as Scientology is just following its founders instructions to adjust it PR and visible doctrine (its public face) to adapt to circumstances.

Over the years, entirely too many judges and government officials were being shown this bit of "scripture" so, now, it can be explained that it's been removed, as Scientology has once again "reformed."

In truth, Scientology is simply becoming yet more covert, in accordance with the tight conspiracy model as outlined by the founder.

Many Judges, including the much despised (by both inside and outside the CofS Scientologists) Judge Breckenridge, have recognized the covert behavior of Scientology in accordance with the "tight conspiracy" model of its founder, and have not been fooled by its PR - PR meant to cover and distract from its vile and obnoxious behavior, and its vile and obnoxious doctrine.

What will happen this time?

Stay tuned.

[Stat]

Can't say I can argue with you here. I really need to examine how I feel about all of this exactly.

Just because I am against the cult doesn't mean I am for efforts to reform it. I just absolutely hate to watch the church getting away with its thuggery but, is it really capable of becoming a kinder, gentler organization as long as it runs off LRH's policies where an enemy was seen around every corner?

Truth is, if someone came and asked me for a donation to the C of S, I would tell them to go jump in a lake.

My husband worked for 25 years straight for the church, during his most formative years where he should have been building a better future. His average W-2 over the 25 years was $6,000/year. That's $115.00 per week before taxes and he had to pay for his own rent, food, clothes, etc. which SO members don't have to pay. In addition, no one was cooking his food and doing his dishes, grocery shopping, laundry, etc.

I'm sure he had less disposable income than Debbie or any other SO member. He gave them 25 years of full-time service 9 am-10:30 pm most of those years. He got NOTHING when he left, not even a thank you.

Still, I think I'm going to help Debbie but, I am done wrapping my life and my attention around this atrocious cult. Both my husband and I have a lot of time to make up. So, even though I am still going to contribute to this motion, I am not going to get all wound up in it.

I know, Syn!

I spent 5 years as a Sup in a mission, I think I made $150 in 5 years, dedicated me.
I spent 3 years in TTC, full time, to get trained as Class V. That's another story.

What bothers me to this day, I missed most of my son's childhood while
being involved in all these noble activities...

Back to the topic, I hope Debbie will succeed beyond KSW.

[Stat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJEL3He3Y_w

Love to you all, and IF you're still "in", PLEASE Use L Ron Hubbard's
Final Policy:
The Way OUT *is* the
Neeeeeeeeeearest Dooooooooooooor:

Hey! He used it, why not YOU?
Bring ALL the docs, too.

Love to all :rose:

Tory/Magoo
www.youtube.com/ToryMagoo44

Thank you for the great vid, Tory!

Love and peace.