Debbie's lawyer looking for help from Dave's victims [Archive]

Mimsey Borogrove

4th March 2012, 11:03 PM

Posted on March 4, 2012 by martyrathbun09 | 29 Comments
by Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun

The Radical Corporate church of Scientology has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Debbie Cook case.

The church is asking the court to declare the church the winners of the lawsuit based on the facts that they have presented to the court. To grant a Summary Judgment, the court must decide that there is no triable issue of fact. That means that no evidence that Debbie can present conflicts with the facts that the church says are established and prove its case for breach of contract.

They are arguing that because Debbie did not battle George Spencer, and effectively cross examine herself on the stand on 9 February, and testify about the duress she has continued to experience since leaving Flag in October 2007, there was no such continuing duress.

Here is where some readers of this blog can help.

Evidence can be submitted to the court by Debbie’s attorneys in the form of sworn affidavits.

A lot of people out there have communicated having experienced continuing duress similar to that experienced by Debbie. In particular, those who can honestly testify, in the form of sworn affidavit, to the following fact pattern may be integral in defeating corporate Scientology’s summary judgment motion:

Mike and Marty then list 6 catagories which you can see at his site.

If you feel you can honestly swear to facts that fit squarely within 1-6 above, or your experience roughly follows the pattern of 1-6 above, an affidavit from you might be critical in overcoming David Miscavige’s dishonest and aggressive attempt to bury Debbie Cook through court process.

If you are willing to consider drafting and signing such an affidavit, please tell your story – emphasizing the facts that fit within the 1-6 pattern – in writing to Mike Rinder at rindermike@yahoo.com and copy me at rathbunmark@yahoo.com.

Despite David Miscavige’s best efforts to prevent Debbie from establishing a defense of any kind we are continuing to assist her counsel in ways that ensure that she have as full, fair and affordable a defense as possible.

You may be able to help - I fit under one or two of the 1-6 but there is insufficent proof connecting of the dots back to Dave for me to be of any help. But I thought I'd get the word out if any want to pitch in.

Mimsey

Mark A. Baker

4th March 2012, 11:06 PM

Mike and Marty then list 6 catagories which you can see at his site.

You may be able to help - I fit under one or two of the 1-6 but there is insufficent proof connecting of the dots back to Dave for me to be of any help. But I thought I'd get the word out if any want to pitch in.

Mimsey

It's always best to include a link directly to the source article.

Here it is for convenience: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/freedom-of-speech-religion-and-conscience/

Mark A. Baker

Free to shine

4th March 2012, 11:21 PM

The 6 points from above link

A lot of people out there have communicated having experienced continuing duress similar to that experienced by Debbie. In particular, those who can honestly testify, in the form of sworn affidavit, to the following fact pattern may be integral in defeating corporate Scientology’s summary judgment motion:

1. Saw first-hand that David Miscavige operated as the supreme leader of Scientology and that there was no possibility of objecting to or defying his dictates no matter how unlawful without severe loss of rights. That includes corporeal punishment including battery, loss of consortium (split up from 2D), lessened sleep, food deprivation, imprisonment, personal degradation, severe hazing, torture, surveillance, monitoring by covert and overt means after leaving, etc.

2. Witnessed David Miscavige beating, punching, kicking, choking, slapping, throwing water at, physically threatening, severely hazing yourself or other staff members, or witnessed agents of Miscavige doing the same or witnessed Miscavige ordering others to do the same.

3. Left church employ because of “1” and/or “2” either by escape (unauthorized sudden departure) or route out procedure.

4. Knew of corporate church policy and/or standard operating procedure to silence former members by way of any or all of the following:

a) signing non-disclosure agreements under intimidating circumstances including presence of Security and/or OSA personnel, presence of an OSA attorney, and/or presence of video recording equipment.

b) Witnessing or participation in the blow drill: where departed staff are tracked down by use of roving teams, credit card information, life history information, pc folder information, in order to make them participate in “a”.

c) Having a provisional SP declare held over one’s head, whereby you were told that if you remained compliant and silent on the outside the SP declare would not come, but if you did otherwise you would be SP declared thus either lose your immortal future and/or lose the right to communicate with friends, associates, business contacts, and family.

5. Were so indoctrinated in an isolated cult for so long that you lost all sense of common mores of civilized society. In other words, developed a mindset where you accepted the wholesale violations of civil and human rights visited upon self and others as justified or normal activity that did not warrant protest or reporting. Many have reported having developed a state of mind where the ends (no matter how unlawful or shocking) justified the means; where for extended periods of time they felt so degraded by their experience that they believed there was something awry with themselves for even harboring thoughts that Miscavige’s reign of violence and human rights violations was in any way actionable or wrong.

6. Because of 1-5 lived for a substantial period of time in fear or reticence of telling anyone about the facts underlying 1-5 or other facts concerning the loss of liberty or Human Rights of self and/or others by David Miscavige or agents of the church of Scientology.

A) Include any of the common manifestations you may have experienced that are often reported by others – nightmares about being apprehended and returned to the Hole or the Int Base or the RPF, nightmares about being visited (and being declared) and having your friends, family, and associates disconnected from you.

B) Include your own thought processes (backed by what you witnessed that prompted it) that kept yourself living in silent fear; such as taking a given period of time on the outside to begin to reckon that what you experienced inside was in fact unlawful or unacceptable in a civilized society; and such as awakening to the unlawful, unjustified nature of your experience only when you saw others were standing up and talking of their similar experiences over a period of time; and such as over time comparing what you experienced inside to the outside, and that experience beginning to wake your conscience with a need to do something about those left behind suffering.

C) Include your considerations about protecting the religion of Scientology. Part and parcel with that would be explaining any conditioning that had caused you to believe that the religion of Scientology was the same as the “church of Scientology” and how that played in keeping you silent and compliant – and of course how time played a part in the differentiation process that caused you to begin to communicate the evils you witnessed.

What is important to emphasize in “6” is time. How much time did it take you to decrompress from the physical and mental trauma of what you experienced in 1-5 to begin to speak with others about your experience; whether as a personal catharsis or as a conscientious need to help others still similarly situated.

I know there are literally hundreds who could and would attest to parts of 1 through 6 above. However, we are looking for corroborative witnesses to the experiences of Debbie and Wayne. Part and parcel of that of course is parallel experiences with an overlapping fact pattern.

Recognize, the inclusion of David Miscavige is important in distinguishing between the hundreds with similar experience and the few dozen with experiences sufficiently parallel with Debbie and Wayne’s experience to be admissible, relevant witnesses. “The boss”, as you may have heard Church of Scientology International counsel Eliot Abelson refer to Miscavige in Debbie’s signing video, is front and center in this case. Irrespective of Abelson’s now-world-famous admission the “church” is doing everything in its power to keep the chief perp out of this dispute, without Miscavige, of course, there is no dispute. Without Miscavige there is no 31 December 2011 e-mail by Debbie, there is no need to speak out, there is no cause to shudder into silence, there is no need for redress for aggravated assault and battery, torture, imprisonment, and the entire array of serial human rights abuses Miscavige perpetrates to this day.

If you feel you can honestly swear to facts that fit squarely within 1-6 above, or your experience roughly follows the pattern of 1-6 above, an affidavit from you might be critical in overcoming David Miscavige’s dishonest and aggressive attempt to bury Debbie Cook through court process.

If you are willing to consider drafting and signing such an affidavit, please tell your story – emphasizing the facts that fit within the 1-6 pattern – in writing to Mike Rinder at rindermike@yahoo.com and copy me at rathbunmark@yahoo.com.

Despite David Miscavige’s best efforts to prevent Debbie from establishing a defense of any kind we are continuing to assist her counsel in ways that ensure that she have as full, fair and affordable a defense as possible.

If you step up, you will be protected.

Free to shine

4th March 2012, 11:25 PM

I wonder if M&M would accept affidavits from Gerry Armstrong... for example?

Jump

4th March 2012, 11:32 PM

I wonder if M&M would accept affidavits from Gerry Armstrong... for example?

I wonder if Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder would write honest affidavits regarding their criminal complicity in Scientology operations.

Mark A. Baker

4th March 2012, 11:47 PM

I wonder if Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder would write honest affidavits regarding their criminal complicity in Scientology operations.

Bet? :whistling:

Mark A. Baker

TheRealNoUser

4th March 2012, 11:55 PM

Miss Pert

5th March 2012, 12:54 AM

The 6 points from above link

Thank you FTS! You always post the valid info from the links so that those of us that refuse to view Marty's site still get to read it without having to endure his drivel. It's much appreciated.

:bighug:

Kutta

5th March 2012, 01:05 AM

I do wonder why an affidavit could not be sent directly to Debbie's counsel.:confused2:

Do M&M want to edit out any incriminating testimony?

La La Lou Lou

5th March 2012, 01:12 AM

I'm not sure how I feel about this. DM is doing such a fabulous job of destroying Scientology that I'm inclined to just let him be, for at least another 5 years or so.

But then again, he does need a good buttfucking, and to see him led off to jail would be serious justification for a party.

:hmm: ... what to do ... what to do ...

That's really rude and inappropriate!

Dave's too short for ''buttfucking'' he's better built for sausage swallowing, he can do it without carpet burns on his knees.

BunnySkull

5th March 2012, 01:49 AM

I do wonder why an affidavit could not be sent directly to Debbie's counsel.:confused2:

Do M&M want to edit out any incriminating testimony?

Yes, I wonder the relationship here. How much power or influence is DEBBIE's lawyer giving Marty & the gang? The idea of M&M being the litmus test for who's testimony is relevant or not is a bit disturbing. Want to bet anyone with bad things to say about Scientology itself won't be needed?

I don't like the idea of people trusting M&M to this degree.

FoTi

5th March 2012, 02:00 AM

scooter

5th March 2012, 02:45 AM

I do wonder why an affidavit could not be sent directly to Debbie's counsel.:confused2:

Do M&M want to edit out any incriminating testimony?

I'd say it's just that they are talking to their "choir" on the blog, nothing sinister. Especially since they've already publicly admitted using violence (well, Rathbun has) on other staff.

They're painting a picture of a culture of violence and abuse and pointing to the Creature at the top of it as "cause." :yes:

We may disagree with their "cause," but the courts can't pursue that anyway as it's covered under "religious doctrine"

I like their thinking on this one - I can hear the Dwarf screaming, biting and slapping right now about it:biggrin:

LA SCN

5th March 2012, 02:47 AM

That's really rude and inappropriate!

Dave's too short for ''buttfucking'' he's better built for sausage swallowing, he can do it without carpet burns on his knees.

I really like that ESMB is such a well mannered and self policing forum - there is always someone there to make sure our rules of etiquette are followed and crude, vulgar posts are corrected.

Thank you, L4 ! :eyeroll::thumbsup:

LA SCN

5th March 2012, 02:52 AM

I'd say it's just that they are talking to their "choir" on the blog, nothing sinister. Especially since they've already publicly admitted using violence (well, Rathbun has) on other staff.

They're painting a picture of a culture of violence and abuse and pointing to the Creature at the top of it as "cause." :yes:

We may disagree with their "cause," but the courts can't pursue that anyway as it's covered under "religious doctrine"

I like their thinking on this one - I can hear the Dwarf screaming, biting and slapping right now about it:biggrin:

OK, but again I don't like M&M inserting themselves on this line as a via between potential witnesses and the lawyer. Until they come clean with the rest of us who have come to our senses about the church, they are not to be trusted, IMO.

HelluvaHoax!

5th March 2012, 03:06 AM

OK, but again I don't like M&M inserting themselves on this line as a via between potential witnesses and the lawyer. Until they come clean with the rest of us who have come to our senses about the church, they are not to be trusted, IMO.

Actually it is a pretty smart strategic move on their part to become the "clearing house" of all Scientology traffic moving outside of the CoS. That way they can "Clear" the added inapplicable truths before the information is forwarded to authorities.

WildKat

5th March 2012, 03:08 AM

I wonder if M&M would accept affidavits from Gerry Armstrong... for example?

I wonder if M&M would accept affidavits from anyone who witnessed abuses from the time when Hubbard was in charge and Miscavige was not in power.

Oh, but that never happened!

If they said it did, they all must be liars, bitter defrocked apostates! :biggrin:

Free to shine

5th March 2012, 03:14 AM

Thank you FTS! You always post the valid info from the links so that those of us that refuse to view Marty's site still get to read it without having to endure his drivel. It's much appreciated.

:bighug:

Oh believe me .... I skim! :biggrin:

Infinite

5th March 2012, 03:20 AM

Actually it is a pretty smart strategic move on their part to become the "clearing house" of all Scientology traffic moving outside of the CoS. That way they can "Clear" the added inapplicable truths before the information is forwarded to authorities.

And collect names.

HelluvaHoax!

5th March 2012, 03:54 AM

And collect names.

NNCF?.... iNNCF?

I have to keep reminding myself to put in the "i" for independent.

It's kinda like Apple with iPhone, iPad, iPod, iCloud. . .

Marty should trademark iCult asap, before the Apple store employees start wearing minister's collars and accepting "donations" for religious artifacts such as phones and computers.

NNCF - New Names to Central Files

Mimsey Borogrove

5th March 2012, 04:01 AM

Lone Star

5th March 2012, 04:37 AM

OK, but again I don't like M&M inserting themselves on this line as a via between potential witnesses and the lawyer. Until they come clean with the rest of us who have come to our senses about the church, they are not to be trusted, IMO.

It could potentially be a detriment to Debbie's case for the MRs to have the testimonials filtered through them. I bet a strong letter from G. Spencer will be sent to Ray Jeffries tomorrow. It's okay to announce this on the MR blog, but having the write ups sent to the MRs before DC's attorney may not be.

GoNuclear

5th March 2012, 05:22 AM

Yes, I wonder the relationship here. How much power or influence is DEBBIE's lawyer giving Marty & the gang? The idea of M&M being the litmus test for who's testimony is relevant or not is a bit disturbing. Want to bet anyone with bad things to say about Scientology itself won't be needed?

I don't like the idea of people trusting M&M to this degree.

What you say may be true ... but not particularly relevant. Bad things about Scientology itself would only touch tangentially on the case. Furthermore, courts are loathe to adjudicate on matters of religious doctrine and rightfully so. And as far as trusting M&M, yes, they have an agenda of their own, whatever that may be, that much is true ... HOWEVER ... there is also a strong commonality of interest here. There are two possible M&M agendas ... either take over the Cof$, or shatter it into nice bite-sized pieces that they can then gain control over at least a significant market share. Either way that means bringing down DM and exposing the abuses. Their agenda may differ with those of us on ESMB in that they may be true believers in the HubTurd and his drek oops I meant tech whereas those of us on here generally seek to expose HubTurd drek for what it is ... but again, that is simply not all that relevant to the proceedings here in COF$ vs. DEBBIE COOK.

One last point ... notice that is COF$ vs DEBBIE COOK, not Cof$ vs. Debbie Cook. DEBBIE COOK is an express trust, created vis the birth registration process of Debbie Cook, where the govt. is the trustee and Debbie Cook was beneficiary at time of the creation of the trust and now a contributing beneficiary. A beneficiary of a trust has no say in how the trust is run, that is up to the trustee. If a beneficiary is a contributing beneficiary, there are duties but still no say in the running or operation of the trust. That is the status that most of us have today. HOWEVER ... there is remedy. Debbie Cook could, at any time, walk away from her status as contributing beneficiary of DEBBIE COOK, or, since she has the ultimate right ... her status, in addition to being contributing beneficiary, is also that of holder in due course, and there is no way of stopping her from becoming a secured party creditor over DEBBIE COOK by filing a lien against that entity. Either way, the Cof$ would be effectively stalemated if not checkmated. Why? Because Cof$ is a corporate entity and operates in the arena of legal fictions only.

Now for those of you who are thoroughly confused, I will break it down to the simple by way of an analogy. You live in the real world of flesh and blood men and women. If someone punches you in the mouth it would hurt for real. If you punched someone else in the mouth it would hurt them for real. But have you ever been punched in the mouth by a cartoon character? Have you ever succeeded in punching a cartoon character in the mouth? Is it even possible in any way shape or form for a live, flesh and blood man, woman, or child to interact with cartoon characters? The answer is generally speaking, that would be impossible. HOWEVER ... there is a technology for animating a cartoon character via computer animation based upon the real time movements of a live actor.

The live actor would don a special suit with all manner of sensors built in that are hooked up to a powerful enough computer. In that instance, the cartoon character animated by the live actor can interact in the cartoon world with other cartoon characters. Now what if the live actor became convinced that he really WAS the cartoon character and forgot that he was a live actor apart from the cartoon world? Not a good situation, obviously, but, when it comes to the legal arena, that is exactly the state of affairs that most people are in today.

There was a time, way back when, when the common law reigned supreme here in the USA, and that was pre Civil War. If there was a dispute to be settled, it was between flesh and blood men and women and there was real substance that it was settled with ... gold and silver coin. These days, virtually everything is corporate. A corporation is the legal equivalent of a cartoon character, and cartoon characters and real live people can't interact directly. The answer was to create and assign cartoon character avatars, if you will, to flesh and blood people. This avatar, created for the purpose of interacting in the cartoon world of legal fiction corporate entities like the Cof$, is the trust entity I spoke of above. The trust is under the control of the trustee, which is govt. until such time that the beneficiary exercises his or her right as holder in due course, meaning the party that holds the ultimate trump card. This avatar is known as a "person" and if you go thru all the various codes and legaleze, you will see the phraseology of "a person who" or "any person who" etc. The system is designed to operate on the basis of you confusing yourself with your avatar and mistaking the cartoon world for the real world. Once you completely understand the distinction, it becomes possible to exercise your rights and put the system to your advantage. There are two videos to look at ... first is the Menard video, available on youtube for free, Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception which is to be seen first, and then the Winston Shrout segment of Zeitgeist also viewable for free on the web where Shrout covers taking control over the entity via lien action.

Bringing it back to the original topic of COF$ vs DEBBIE COOK, when M&M were drumming up support for Debbie, I attempted to post this material in a concise, to the point manner on the Marty blog ... IT WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO BE POSTED. Most usually, my posts fly on there just fine, but not that one. Because their agenda involves beating the shit out of the Cof$ in a publically viewed arena as opposed to simply binding the beast down with its own chains and quietly walking away from it and going about one's own business. But back to MY point ... the arena where this fight is happening is an arena of cartoon characters and a flesh and blood actor can simply cease animating his avatar at any time or can gain control over the avatar in such fashion as to render the efforts of other cartoon character avatars null and void. Debbie and Wayne need to be made aware of this option. I can understand a perceived need to beat the shit out of the Cof$ in the arena I spoke of, but, if all else fails, the route that I am speaking of here is a great option. It would prevent Cof$ from collecting a dime or shutting her up.

Pete

degraded being

5th March 2012, 11:26 AM

PS
......just keep mum about Ron, OK?

LA SCN

5th March 2012, 11:51 AM

I'll bet he would prefer that M&M vet the people turning in affidavits. With all the OSA sock puppets & trolls & the wacko camera hat squirrel busters trying their best to trip him up, they could be performing a valuable service - without them, he wouldn't know the wheat from the chaff.

Mimsey

From the get go Marty has placed himself between Debbie and indies / exes and vested himself with the authority to vet her comm particles, inbound and outbound. Indeed Debbie originally sent THE EMAIL to only 300 or so folks inside the church - it was Marty and posse that forwarded it on and made it viral.

Without seeing any issue from Debbie or her lawyer officially anointing Marty as her spokeshole and tactical advisor it just seems illogical on the face of it, strangely reminiscent of the scenario when the dwarf sat on the comm lines of LuRcH.

He has placed himself in a convenient position to co-opt and damage control any testimony that might derail his plan for future glory.

Additionally it just irks the hell out of me to have seen M&M in the conference room video with Debbie and her lawyer after THE VICTORY just smiling ear to ear and all happy. Them sitting with all those undisclosed crimes of magnitude against just those victims of abuse that they now want to come forward to help Debbies case.

A sticky wicket indeed. On the stand under cross examination:

church lawyer: OK, Joe, you say you were abused by the church, abusive treatment ordered by Miscavige?

joe: Yes, that's right.

church lawyer: who actually carried out those actions?

joe: well.....it was Marty and Mike...

(courtroom groans - major footbullet)

In the quest for justice, Debbie, Marty, Mike - you can't have it both ways.

La La Lou Lou

5th March 2012, 11:52 AM

GoNuke,
Pete cartoon and reality.

This is the best film ever. Does need subtitles though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX2XrEz4u7w&feature=related

By the way sorry I can understand the Italian in this film better than your legalese.

Rene Descartes

5th March 2012, 02:24 PM

They are arguing that because Debbie did not battle George Spencer, and effectively cross examine herself on the stand on 9 February, and testify about the duress she has continued to experience since leaving Flag in October 2007, there was no such continuing duress.

Wait a second, just wait a gosh darn minute!

This is so stupid that the even there isn't enough facepalms to go around the offices of all the Church lawyers.

Wait wait wait.

1. So they are admitting that she did face duress? whah? huh?

2. If she was facing duress prior to signing then she would have had to face duress after the signing? Gads, just the fact that friends disconnected from her after the email does more than just imply that there was duress. And for sure there are records of emails and texts and cliquee twitters that can confirm this. Whether or not this had to do with the Pope is irrelavent.

3. And she didn't cross exaine herself? Duh!! And they claim this after they pulled the plug on the case before there it was finished? Now that is just plain ol' stupid.

Oy vey!

Rd00

Rene Descartes

5th March 2012, 02:32 PM

The church is asking the court to declare the church the winners of the lawsuit based on the facts that they have presented to the court. To grant a Summary Judgment, the court must decide that there is no triable issue of fact. That means that no evidence that Debbie can present conflicts with the facts that the church says are established and prove its case for breach of contract.

Three words.

KSW

Okay that is three letters.

HelluvaHoax was stating a few weeks ago.

As a Scientologist Debbie Cooks is required to apply KSW.

More words

Introductory to Scientology Ethics.

There are a list of crimes in the later pages of the books.

I don't remember them all but I do know that there is something in there perhaps stated in other words about failure to reports gross misapplications of tech and policy.

Anotehr one that HH was pointing out - Ethics Gradients.

Jeffrey just has to bring up the relevant policy to show that there is conflict in what the Church is saying vs the reasons for Debbis Cook writing that email.

Crap now I have to go check the original NDA and see if there is anything in there about her having to maintain the integrity of the policy of the Church.

This case is starting to suck. Why? Because it is bringing out more bull by the Church and their desires to maintain control and power over anybody that has anything to do with them.

I'm starting to get pissed off.

Do I sound it? :angry:

Rd00

Jquepublic

5th March 2012, 02:34 PM

Wait a second, just wait a gosh darn minute!

This is so stupid that the even there isn't enough facepalms to go around the offices of all the Church lawyers.

Wait wait wait.

1. So they are admitting that she did face duress? whah? huh?

2. If she was facing duress prior to signing then she would have had to face duress after the signing? Gads, just the fact that friends disconnected from her after the email does more than just imply that there was duress. And for sure there are records of emails and texts and cliquee twitters that can confirm this. Whether or not this had to do with the Pope is irrelavent.

3. And she didn't cross exaine herself? Duh!! And they claim this after they pulled the plug on the case before there it was finished? Now that is just plain ol' stupid.

Oy vey!

Rd00

Actually, they've admitted it in a round about way. They're stating that any claims of duress are not a factor in this "simple contract violation".

They're just trying to avoid the trial by jury and the further shitstorm of bad press for Miscavige/CoS that is inevitable if this goes to trial.

Commander Birdsong

5th March 2012, 03:28 PM

Mike and Marty then list 6 catagories which you can see at his site.

You may be able to help - I fit under one or two of the 1-6 but there is insufficent proof connecting of the dots back to Dave for me to be of any help. But I thought I'd get the word out if any want to pitch in.

Mimsey

pitch in

other testimony might well connect the dots

Ladybird

5th March 2012, 07:13 PM

pitch in

other testimony might well connect the dots

Send your testimony and your donations directly to Debbie and her lawyers, NOT to Marty. Marty Rathbun was David Miscaviges #1 thug in charge of legal and other dirty tricks for over 20 years.

Those 6 things (with points a,b and c or more) Marty posted made it seem like your testimony was only of value if you personally witnessed or experienced ALL of them.

Marty is not Debbie Cooks lawyer or legal representative. I suspect Marty wants to vet the testimony many of us could provide and cut himself out of the criminal activity.

Lulu Belle

5th March 2012, 07:20 PM

I suspect Marty wants to vet the testimony many of us could provide and cut himself out of the criminal activity.

hmmmm.....

good point.

Rinder, too.

I wish we could get some information from Debbie or her lawyer about what THEY want people to do. It is kind of weird with Marty talking for her.

RogerB

5th March 2012, 09:45 PM

The R&R request for Depositions states in part:

Recognize, the inclusion of David Miscavige is important in distinguishing between the hundreds with similar experience and the few dozen with experiences sufficiently parallel with Debbie and Wayne’s experience to be admissible, relevant witnesses. “The boss”, as you may have heard Church of Scientology International counsel Eliot Abelson refer to Miscavige in Debbie’s signing video, is front and center in this case. Irrespective of Abelson’s now-world-famous admission the “church” is doing everything in its power to keep the chief perp out of this dispute, without Miscavige, of course, there is no dispute. Without Miscavige there is no 31 December 2011 e-mail by Debbie, there is no need to speak out, there is no cause to shudder into silence, there is no need for redress for aggravated assault and battery, torture, imprisonment, and the entire array of serial human rights abuses Miscavige perpetrates to this day.

Pardon me, but I don't think I am dull to be questioning R&R's highlighting the "importance" of focusing on citing Miscavage's doings in the requested testimony . . .

What's that got to do with the Case of Debbie Vs Cof$ or CofS Vs Debbie? It's a small side issue in the case only in the context that when Debbie mentioned Miscavage as part of the conspiracy of assault on her, the Church attorney raised the issue that he's not "proven" to be part of this case (the Co$ suit against Debbie).

There is some degree of introduced arbitrary here on R&R's insistence your deposition cite and involve Miscavage. WTF for?

All Debbie has to prove or provide a preponderance of evidence of is that fact that the Cof$ and its staffers and hired hands have committed criminal acts, abused her and others, violated civil rights, and generally operated on the basis of use of abuse and duress against it's own peoples as well as perceived enemies to subdue people.

There is no need "to be sure to include Miscavage" or for your deposition "only to be valid or important if it cites Miscavage."

What's with the need to target Miscavage R&R?

I want Debbie to win big time and hands down. Nice if she brings Miscavage down in the process . . . and the Cof$ as well.

But her case is not against Miscavage. :no: And the case against her
is not Miscavage against her.

So I say, all who have evident that demonstrates Debbie's accusations against the Cof$ are factual, that corroborate her accusations against the Cof$ and bolster her defense on the issues of the invalidity of basis of the charges brought against her, should speak up and give a deposition.

Miscavage is ancillary to the main parade of these two cases.

Based on what we know, poor R&R have such dirty hands they would be rather poor witnesses themselves in this parade . . . Though it may well be true that the Cof$ can't discredit them without utterly destroying themselves in the process . . . . .

But I don't see any valid reason for R&R introducing the stipulation that submitted evidence has to include or cite Miscavage. WTF is that all about?

RogerB

KissMyStats

5th March 2012, 09:48 PM

Petey C

5th March 2012, 09:57 PM

If you step up, you will be protected.

I wonder what this means and whether M&M have the authority to make this assertion.

Mark A. Baker

5th March 2012, 10:43 PM

The R&R request for Depositions states in part:

Pardon me, but I don't think I am dull to be questioning R&R's highlighting the "importance" of focusing on citing Miscavage's doings in the requested testimony . ...

Not in the least. I strongly suspect much of what is happening behind the scenes is dependent on this.

... .

What's that got to do with the Case of Debbie Vs Cof$ or CofS Vs Debbie? It's a small side issue in the case only in the context that when Debbie mentioned Miscavage as part of the conspiracy of assault on her, the Church attorney raised the issue that he's not "proven" to be part of this case (the Co$ suit against Debbie).

...

What's with the need to target Miscavage R&R? ...

IANAL but I strongly suspect that this is the primary point, not only for the two MRs but for Cook as well.

What I THINK is happening is that IF Cook can win her case, or even be shown as likely to win in such a fashion the church will be willing to negotiate, AND IF it can be well established that Miscavige himself bears responsibility for any transgressions, loss of reputation on behalf of the church, and financial losses to the church resulting from the former THEN a case exists for elimination of David Miscavige as operating head of the church.

Now, IANAL, but I believe that which is being put to test by the plaintiffs in this matter is that as a Corporate Officer Miscavige has certain legal requirements & responsibilities towards the reputation and standing of the corporation he heads. By putting him up front and center accused of abuse and damaging the reputation of the institution he heads I see the plaintiffs as attempting to force the hand of the board of directors to 'throw david under the bus'.

I'm not sure on the specific legal principles involved here but I believe there are provisions under corporate law which require the board of directors to act to remove directors or executives who are deemed to be damaging their respective institutions. In suitable instances a failure to act on the part of a board could be used to hold the entire board accountable and subject to removal themselves through appropriate government intervention. The thing about corporate institutions, whether religious or not, is that they are bound to adhere to the laws regulating corporate behavior or else face involuntarily dissolution under the law. :biggrin:

It would require an attorney familiar with matters of corporate law to address these questions as to whether this would be a feasible line of attack against Miscavige under the requirements of corporate rules & regulations, but this is what I suspect is happening: a scenario is being created in the Cook countersuit where the board of directors either willingly negotiates a settlement with Cook involving the removal of Miscavige from his controlling position in the church, or alternately they are forced by legal circumstance to do so as a result of a finding of his personal culpability.

For such an approach to work, given the degree of effective internal control that Miscavige has been able to maintain, requires that Miscavige be held directly & personally responsible for the church's difficulties and with no prospect of a 'plausible deniability' which could be used to justify his retention by the board. A sharing of blame would not be as likely to force removal as there would be doubt and effective 'wriggle room' for maneuvering. Hence, the importance of directly implicating Miscavige in the events.

Rathbun would certainly consider such a result as a definitive 'win' against Miscavige, as would those others such as Cook & Company for whom Miscavige is seen as the 'only problem' with the church of scientology.

Mark A. Baker

out for good

5th March 2012, 10:43 PM

HelluvaHoax!

5th March 2012, 10:45 PM

..

"If you step up, you will be protected."

I wonder what this means and whether M&M have the authority to make this assertion.

Fascinating.

This is pure Scientology being applied, exactly per Hubbard's "scripture".

Promise people absolutely anything in order to get what you want.

Later when the promise is broken, blame others and demand that the victims write up their O/W's and order them to take responsibility* and make up the damage for allowing this betrayal to happen.

* typically in the form of amends projects, re-doing expensive bridge actions or straight donations.

Mimsey Borogrove

5th March 2012, 11:25 PM

If you step up, you will be protected.

I wonder what this means and whether M&M have the authority to make this assertion. Remember, this is Texas? They have guns and are not afraid to use them. They don't need no stinking badges.

Mimsey

Mimsey Borogrove

5th March 2012, 11:51 PM

I think it is a valid point that this game is being played on many levels, such as the instant battle in Debbie's counter suit, and the take-down games that M&M may be instigating, and the restoration of the church and perhaps even a grab at all of it's accumulated wealth. Int has always been afraid of a coup (gee, similar overts of your own, Dave?) stemming from M&M's camp for several years and this may be a key battle.

But will the church survive a take-down of Miscavige? Showing him to the public of Scientology as a petty crim, who altered tech, raped the public for donos etc., and you have a staggering loss of faith.

So, I guess this begs the question - do you want to play along with them? Help them? Sit this one out? It could go either way - the church caves, or the church survives. Remember Mondo, (Blazing Saddles) "Mondo pawn in game of life"? You can easily get Ray's email address and phone # in a hot 5 min of Googling if you want to deal with him direct. It's your call.

Mimsey

Smurf

6th March 2012, 12:11 AM

You are right; M&M should not be trusted. I think there is something fishy going on. A few weeks ago I saw a post on divided-by-zero where someone was saying that Debbie Cook said she spent 50K in lawyer's fees. That post has been taken down and I was wondering why.

The DBZ has initiated some strict guidelines prohibiting "doxing". Miranda probably removed it because the $$ spent on legal fees is not for public consumption. The cult has already ordered Debbie's attorney to retain all documents pertaining to the fundraising incurred for Deb's defense fund.

Marty, who started the fund, told the cult to fuck off, that he would not release the name of the donors & how much money each contributed to the fund. As far back as I can remember, the cult paid particular attention to who was contributing money to people in cases adverse to the cult, so they could track down & harass those contributors.

At my hearing with the City Attorney last year, when Kirstie Alley & her Scilon friends tried to have me charged with harassment for filming the Grand Opening of her failed endeavor, Organic Liaison, Moxon demanded, and threatened to get a court order, to know how much I was paying my attorney to defend me. I told him if he got on his knees and blew me, I'd tell him.

I don't ever recall a judge demanding a defendant in a civil case adverse to Scientology, to surrender their list of contributors.

Lulu Belle

6th March 2012, 12:18 AM

At my hearing with the City Attorney last year, when Kirstie Alley & her Scilon friends tried to have me charged with harassment for filming the Grand Opening of her failed endeavor, Organic Liaison, Moxon demanded, and threatened to get a court order, to know how much I was paying my attorney to defend me. I told him if he got on his knees and blew me, I'd tell him.

http://im-smiley.com/imgs/big-animated/smirk.gif (http://im-smiley.com)

TheRealNoUser

6th March 2012, 12:23 AM

RogerB

6th March 2012, 01:26 AM

Not in the least. I strongly suspect much of what is happening behind the scenes is dependent on this.

IANAL but I strongly suspect that this is the primary point, not only for the two MRs but for Cook as well.

What I THINK is happening is that IF Cook can win her case, or even be shown as likely to win in such a fashion the church will be willing to negotiate, AND IF it can be well established that Miscavige himself bears responsibility for any transgressions, loss of reputation on behalf of the church, and financial losses to the church resulting from the former THEN a case exists for elimination of David Miscavige as operating head of the church.

Now, IANAL, but I believe that which is being put to test by the plaintiffs in this matter is that as a Corporate Officer Miscavige has certain legal requirements & responsibilities towards the reputation and standing of the corporation he heads. By putting him up front and center accused of abuse and damaging the reputation of the institution he heads I see the plaintiffs as attempting to force the hand of the board of directors to 'throw david under the bus'.

I'm not sure on the specific legal principles involved here but I believe there are provisions under corporate law which require the board of directors to act to remove directors or executives who are deemed to be damaging their respective institutions. In suitable instances a failure to act on the part of a board could be used to hold the entire board accountable and subject to removal themselves through appropriate government intervention. The thing about corporate institutions, whether religious or not, is that they are bound to adhere to the laws regulating corporate behavior or else face involuntarily dissolution under the law. :biggrin:

It would require an attorney familiar with matters of corporate law to address these questions as to whether this would be a feasible line of attack against Miscavige under the requirements of corporate rules & regulations, but this is what I suspect is happening: a scenario is being created in the Cook countersuit where the board of directors either willingly negotiates a settlement with Cook involving the removal of Miscavige from his controlling position in the church, or alternately they are forced by legal circumstance to do so as a result of a finding of his personal culpability.

For such an approach to work, given the degree of effective internal control that Miscavige has been able to maintain, requires that Miscavige be held directly & personally responsible for the church's difficulties and with no prospect of a 'plausible deniability' which could be used to justify his retention by the board. A sharing of blame would not be as likely to force removal as there would be doubt and effective 'wriggle room' for maneuvering. Hence, the importance of directly implicating Miscavige in the events.

Rathbun would certainly consider such a result as a definitive 'win' against Miscavige, as would those others such as Cook & Company for whom Miscavige is seen as the 'only problem' with the church of scientology.

Mark A. Baker

Then if all that's true . . .and I don't have the time nor interest to get into your kind of nit-picking shit . . . then R&R should make it plain what they are trying to accomplish and not put out a misleading dictate that has lead to one person, at least as shown above, to decline to contribute because she/he "does not match all the points" of the R&R prescription.

I am pointing out that Miscavage is currently not part of the proceedings . . . no matter how much we wish he were . . . .

If R&R want to embroil him in it, then they would be wiser to declare that strategy by announcing "here is our opportunity" so let's use it.

But instead they are silly enough to put it as part of an emphasis that ought or must be included in submitted depositions . . . . that is dull because it tends to KO valid submissions.

But here you are again intellectualizing about what you "suspect" . . . why can't you just stick to the simple facts of the issue at hand?

My statement that all who have evidence to back up Debbie's case should submit it regardless of whether or not it implicates Miscavage directly, contrary to R&R's verbiage, is ignored by you . . . . well I suppose that is one way of ignoring proper orders of importance :duh:

R

Lone Star

6th March 2012, 01:41 AM

Then if all that's true . . .and I don't have the time nor interest to get into your kind of nit-picking shit . . . then R&R should make it plain what they are trying to accomplish and not put out a misleading dictate that has lead to one person, at least as shown above, to decline to contribute because she/he "does not match all the points" of the R&R prescription.

I am pointing out that Miscavage is currently not part of the proceedings . . . no matter how much we wish he were . . . .

If R&R want to embroil him in it, then they would be wiser to declare that strategy by announcing "here is our opportunity" so let's use it.

But instead they are silly enough to put it as part of an emphasis that ought or must be included in submitted depositions . . . . that is dull because it tends to KO valid submissions.

But here you are again intellectualizing about what you "suspect" . . . why can't you just stick to the simple facts of the issue at hand?

My statement that all who have evidence to back up Debbie's case should submit it regardless of whether or not it implicates Miscavage directly, contrary to R&R's verbiage, is ignored by you . . . . well I suppose that is one way of ignoring proper orders of importance :duh:

R

Regardless of details or speculation, I have had a gut feeling for a while now that Marty is going to somehow screw up this case for Debbie. Hopefully not in a critical way, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he creates a setback that Debbie's lawyer will have to overcome. That's the last thing her lawyer will need. He's got enough on his plate.

After Marty came out with his call for people to step forward and write testimonials, my gut feeling got stronger. Especially when I read that he wanted these people to send their testimonials to either himself or Rinder. I just see potential trouble with this. A footbullet in the making.

Now I may be off base and DC's attorney either asked MR to do this, or he approved it after MR offered to help. We'll see...

Terril park

6th March 2012, 01:43 AM

The R&R request for Depositions states in part:

Pardon me, but I don't think I am dull to be questioning R&R's highlighting the "importance" of focusing on citing Miscavage's doings in the requested testimony . . .

What's that got to do with the Case of Debbie Vs Cof$ or CofS Vs Debbie? It's a small side issue in the case only in the context that when Debbie mentioned Miscavage as part of the conspiracy of assault on her, the Church attorney raised the issue that he's not "proven" to be part of this case (the Co$ suit against Debbie).

There is some degree of introduced arbitrary here on R&R's insistence your deposition cite and involve Miscavage. WTF for?

All Debbie has to prove or provide a preponderance of evidence of is that fact that the Cof$ and its staffers and hired hands have committed criminal acts, abused her and others, violated civil rights, and generally operated on the basis of use of abuse and duress against it's own peoples as well as perceived enemies to subdue people.

There is no need "to be sure to include Miscavage" or for your deposition "only to be valid or important if it cites Miscavage."

What's with the need to target Miscavage R&R?

I want Debbie to win big time and hands down. Nice if she brings Miscavage down in the process . . . and the Cof$ as well.

But her case is not against Miscavage. :no: And the case against her
is not Miscavage against her.

So I say, all who have evident that demonstrates Debbie's accusations against the Cof$ are factual, that corroborate her accusations against the Cof$ and bolster her defense on the issues of the invalidity of basis of the charges brought against her, should speak up and give a deposition.

Miscavage is ancillary to the main parade of these two cases.

Based on what we know, poor R&R have such dirty hands they would be rather poor witnesses themselves in this parade . . . Though it may well be true that the Cof$ can't discredit them without utterly destroying themselves in the process . . . . .

But I don't see any valid reason for R&R introducing the stipulation that submitted evidence has to include or cite Miscavage. WTF is that all about?

RogerB

There is this:-

----------------------------
J. Swift | March 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Reply

In a 2008 article on Andrew Morton’s book on Tom Cruise, a question was asked if TC was second in command of the Church. Elliot Abelson replied:

“Mr Abelson denied the actor was ‘second in command’.

“He is a parishioner, a well respected parishioner, but that’s what he is. The only person who runs the Church and makes policy decisions is David Miscavige.”

Ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-506359/Diana-author-names-Tom-Cruise-World-Number-Two-Scientology.html#ixzz1oBMxQfI4

Elliot Abelson has already admitted that DM is in charge. Any affidavits that document duress are buttressed by Abelson’s own remarks.

Lone Star

6th March 2012, 01:49 AM

There is this:-

----------------------------
J. Swift | March 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Reply

In a 2008 article on Andrew Morton’s book on Tom Cruise, a question was asked if TC was second in command of the Church. Elliot Abelson replied:

“Mr Abelson denied the actor was ‘second in command’.

“He is a parishioner, a well respected parishioner, but that’s what he is. The only person who runs the Church and makes policy decisions is David Miscavige.”

Ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-506359/Diana-author-names-Tom-Cruise-World-Number-Two-Scientology.html#ixzz1oBMxQfI4

Elliot Abelson has already admitted that DM is in charge. Any affidavits that document duress are buttressed by Abelson’s own remarks.

That is a great quote...potentially damaging. Forward it to Marty, er, I mean Debbie's attorney.

Mark A. Baker

6th March 2012, 02:01 AM

Then if all that's true . . .and I don't have the time nor interest to get into your kind of nit-picking shit . . .

So? Don't. Just because my mind works that way is no reason you have to respond in kind. I find it useful. Not everyone shares that view.

...then R&R should make it plain what they are trying to accomplish and not put out a misleading dictate that has lead to one person, at least as shown above, to decline to contribute because she/he "does not match all the points" of the R&R prescription. ...

I doubt there will be much plain speaking from Rathbun & Associates, at least not of the 'truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth' variety. It doesn't seem to be their forte. They appear to prefer expurgated versions.

... But here you are again intellectualizing about what you "suspect" . . . why can't you just stick to the simple facts of the issue at hand?

Well, absent transcripts of any strategy planning sessions involving the lawyers, rathbun & cook, facts on hand such as they are are remarkably scant. As you have indicated what facts there are indicate that they wish to corral Miscavige specifically into this case. You already pointed out that raises the question of 'why' since for the simple purpose of making Cook's case it appears to be a bit of a side issue. That question invites speculation based on what is known. My remarks were clearly labeled as speculation on that point.

As you indicate what matters for her case is the fact of coercion by church representatives. Direct implication of Miscavige as having been personally involved is not essential to achieving that purpose.

... My statement that all who have evidence to back up Debbie's case should submit it regardless of whether or not it implicates Miscavage directly, contrary to R&R's verbiage, is ignored by you . ...

Hardly ignored. I simply had nothing to add to your remark. I regarded it as quite apt. A failure to comment on my part need not denote disagreement.

My prior remarks in response to yours serve only as one hypothetical interpretation of events. Nothing more. Time & circumstance may chance to illuminate more.

Mark A. Baker

HelluvaHoax!

6th March 2012, 02:18 AM

The R&R request for Depositions states in part:

Pardon me, but I don't think I am dull to be questioning R&R's highlighting the "importance" of focusing on citing Miscavage's doings in the requested testimony . . .

What's that got to do with the Case of Debbie Vs Cof$ or CofS Vs Debbie? It's a small side issue in the case only in the context that when Debbie mentioned Miscavage as part of the conspiracy of assault on her, the Church attorney raised the issue that he's not "proven" to be part of this case (the Co$ suit against Debbie).

There is some degree of introduced arbitrary here on R&R's insistence your deposition cite and involve Miscavage. WTF for?

All Debbie has to prove or provide a preponderance of evidence of is that fact that the Cof$ and its staffers and hired hands have committed criminal acts, abused her and others, violated civil rights, and generally operated on the basis of use of abuse and duress against it's own peoples as well as perceived enemies to subdue people.

There is no need "to be sure to include Miscavage" or for your deposition "only to be valid or important if it cites Miscavage."

What's with the need to target Miscavage R&R?

I want Debbie to win big time and hands down. Nice if she brings Miscavage down in the process . . . and the Cof$ as well.

But her case is not against Miscavage. :no: And the case against her
is not Miscavage against her.

So I say, all who have evident that demonstrates Debbie's accusations against the Cof$ are factual, that corroborate her accusations against the Cof$ and bolster her defense on the issues of the invalidity of basis of the charges brought against her, should speak up and give a deposition.

Miscavage is ancillary to the main parade of these two cases.

Based on what we know, poor R&R have such dirty hands they would be rather poor witnesses themselves in this parade . . . Though it may well be true that the Cof$ can't discredit them without utterly destroying themselves in the process . . . . .

But I don't see any valid reason for R&R introducing the stipulation that submitted evidence has to include or cite Miscavage. WTF is that all about?

RogerB

Agreed. But as you well know, there is often the case proper and ALSO le grande subtext of jockeying for position in the likelihood of a settlement prior to trial.

The leverage in favor of Debbie's case vs COS is two-fold:

* proof of coercion (which does involve Miscavige directly and indirectly)

* the terror factor (which would compel Miscavige to do anything to avoid getting pulled into discovery or testifying under oath in a trial, where cross-examination and impeachment documents/witnesses are forthcoming.)

A safe assumption is that the obligatory motion for Summary Judgment will be dismissed for obvious reasons. What then remains is the path leading to trial and the opening of Pandoras "Case" so to speak.

Ultimately, history teaches that the downfall of despots and demons is often playing their own strengths against them, in Jujitsu fashion. Miscavige's billion dollar bullying has inexorably led him into this ill-fated showdown. Whether or not Debbie/Marty orchestrated it intentionally in order to bait COB into an ambush is not clear.

But either way, I would expect Miscavige cut bait and dock his boat at the nearest port and safely walk ashore. How he will try to save face in doing so should be quite fascinating.

Rene Descartes

6th March 2012, 02:40 AM

There is this:-

----------------------------
J. Swift | March 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Reply

In a 2008 article on Andrew Morton’s book on Tom Cruise, a question was asked if TC was second in command of the Church. Elliot Abelson replied:

“Mr Abelson denied the actor was ‘second in command’.

“He is a parishioner, a well respected parishioner, but that’s what he is. The only person who runs the Church and makes policy decisions is David Miscavige.”

Ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-506359/Diana-author-names-Tom-Cruise-World-Number-Two-Scientology.html#ixzz1oBMxQfI4

Elliot Abelson has already admitted that DM is in charge. Any affidavits that document duress are buttressed by Abelson’s own remarks.

After seeing this I would insane cackle for 5 minutes except I value my gonads and will have to suppress the insane cackle till tomorrow as my wife is sound asleep and to wake her with an insane cackle would be the same as a self inflicted gonad bullet upon both mine own 'nads.

Rd00

Boomima

6th March 2012, 03:37 AM

HelluvaHoax!

6th March 2012, 04:28 AM

--snipped--

Indie Scientologists are more confusing that the other kind.

A quizzical anomaly, ain't it?

I find it hard to plot them on the map, exactly.

To be (do/have) KSW or not, that is the question.

Perhaps, I need to solve a Zen Koan to understand Indies:

"What is the sound of one foot(bullet) flapping?"

scooter

6th March 2012, 06:25 AM

Agreed. But as you well know, there is often the case proper and ALSO le grande subtext of jockeying for position in the likelihood of a settlement prior to trial.

The leverage in favor of Debbie's case vs COS is two-fold:

* proof of coercion (which does involve Miscavige directly and indirectly)

* the terror factor (which would compel Miscavige to do anything to avoid getting pulled into discovery or testifying under oath in a trial, where cross-examination and impeachment documents/witnesses are forthcoming.)

A safe assumption is that the obligatory motion for Summary Judgment will be dismissed for obvious reasons. What then remains is the path leading to trial and the opening of Pandoras "Case" so to speak.

Ultimately, history teaches that the downfall of despots and demons is often playing their own strengths against them, in Jujitsu fashion. Miscavige's billion dollar bullying has inexorably led him into this ill-fated showdown. Whether or not Debbie/Marty orchestrated it intentionally in order to bait COB into an ambush is not clear.

But either way, I would expect Miscavige cut bait and dock his boat at the nearest port and safely walk ashore. How he will try to save face in doing so should be quite fascinating.

You are presuming there is some sanity in what Pope Dave does.:omg:

I don't believe that the events of Debbie's trial support such a supposition.:coolwink:

Debbie's lawyer AND Rathbun publicly say what Debbie's gonna talk about prior to the hearing, yet Pope Dave goes ahead. Then pulls the pin at the end of the first day bawwwwwing about how Debbie has hijacked His courtcase against her.:duh:

Now an appeal for a Summary Judgement that is pretty likely to fail AND bring up even more evidence against that that Pope Dave doesn't want to see the light of day PLUS it's given Rathbun the chance to ask for anyone abused by DM to come forward and sign an affidavit about it which will just enlarge the scope of the case against DM:happydance:

None of this is the mark of a person possessed with any hinderance of sanity in Their quest for Planetary Domination ... er Clearing.:no:

Dave doing the sane thing and cutting and running? :roflmao:

Hoaxie, this is one of the best jests you've ever pulled. :hysterical:

Dave will be thinking about that just around the time He's being bent over and having His orange jumpsuit removed by several large inmates - and He'll be trying to find someone else to blame for Him not taking that option.:dieslaughing:

Hey Dave :shark: - get used to the feeling.

Mark A. Baker

6th March 2012, 06:36 AM

... Now an appeal for a Summary Judgement that is pretty likely to fail ...

I wouldn't make too much of the church having filed a Request for Summary Judgement, Scoot. They are pretty routine tactically whether an attorney considers it likely the judge will grant or not. It's regarded as a low risk, quick, quiet way to seek a 'win'. There's no real penalty if its not granted and relatively cheap to file.

Not much down side, reasonable prospect for success. It would be more surprising if the church had withheld from filing it.

Mark A. Baker

Rene Descartes

6th March 2012, 10:47 AM

I wouldn't make too much of the church having filed a Request for Summary Judgement, Scoot. They are pretty routine tactically whether an attorney considers it likely the judge will grant or not. It's regarded as a low risk, quick, quiet way to seek a 'win'. There's no real penalty if its not granted and relatively cheap to file.

Not much down side, reasonable prospect for success. It would be more surprising if the church had withheld from filing it.

Mark A. Baker

Let's compare two scenarios with a cost to beenfit analysis

Scenario 1. File a Summary Judgement. Cost? estimate 33 pages of paper at $800 per hour. Estimate 10 hours to prepare such statement. Cost to file? estimate $400 Court costs for sumary judgement hearing? $500. Lawyer fees for Summary Jugment Hearing? $2,000.Expected probability of win? Comservative Estimate 1 out of a trillion.

Scenario 2. Buy a Powerball ticket. Cost $2, no estimate, true cost. Expected probability of win. approx. 1 in 80 million.

Expected loss

Scenario 1 $ 10,899.99999999999999999999999

Scenario 2 $1.999999999999

Ahh the old Master Card punchline

Priceless

I'm not goign to say they should not have filed but if the Pope on a Rope is hoping for something goodto come out of it he better be making plans for the next step.

If I could find the right sports scenario to use as an analogy I would write it but thsi is difficult because sports involves some elements of luck that a courtroom probably can't locate.

The only way a sports analogy might stand up is if we enter the word "payoff" into the foray.

Rd00

Freeminds

6th March 2012, 11:05 AM

To be (do/have) KSW or not, that is the question.

To KSW, somebody will first have to GSW... and nobody ever has got Scientology working. Unless it's meant to be nothing more than a pyramid scam, that is. In that case, it's still working... sort of.

Jump

6th March 2012, 12:52 PM

...
Funny movie parody from wwp...

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s215/photopian/double.jpg

LA SCN

6th March 2012, 01:08 PM

...
Funny movie parody from wwp...

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s215/photopian/double.jpg

A good shoop is worth a thousand words! :hysterical:

LA SCN

6th March 2012, 01:15 PM

...
Funny movie parody from wwp...

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s215/photopian/double.jpg

To dream the impossible dream...

(Davey, big ol' boy Cletus, prison bars, bent over, white knuckles gripping, "double or nothing, bitch"...) :coolwink:

HelluvaHoax!

6th March 2012, 01:19 PM

To KSW, somebody will first have to GSW... and nobody ever has got Scientology working. Unless it's meant to be nothing more than a pyramid scam, that is. In that case, it's still working... sort of.

That is so perfect.

This is the granddaddy of all "assumptive closes".

Nobody ever thinks to ask when it is going to start working because Hubbard drills it into people 24/7 that they must keep it working. LOL

That is a stage illusion, personified, with misdirection and the audience thinking that real magic has happened.

Then the audience applauds Hubbard for defrauding them and taking their money.

Finally the audience leaves the theater, laughing & congratulating each other about how they are the top 1% of all the people in the world who were able enough to find that magician and witness a miracle.

Nice trick.

Jquepublic

6th March 2012, 02:25 PM

There is this:-

----------------------------
J. Swift | March 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Reply

In a 2008 article on Andrew Morton’s book on Tom Cruise, a question was asked if TC was second in command of the Church. Elliot Abelson replied:

“Mr Abelson denied the actor was ‘second in command’.

“He is a parishioner, a well respected parishioner, but that’s what he is. The only person who runs the Church and makes policy decisions is David Miscavige.”

Ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-506359/Diana-author-names-Tom-Cruise-World-Number-Two-Scientology.html#ixzz1oBMxQfI4

Elliot Abelson has already admitted that DM is in charge. Any affidavits that document duress are buttressed by Abelson’s own remarks.

Good ferreting, Terril! Did you notice the request to explain the relationship between the plaintiff and Elliot Abelson in the docs Tony O Posted today?! I think you sniffed out a good one! ;)

Jquepublic

6th March 2012, 02:32 PM

So, Marty who is on record as admitting that he was physically abusive to staff and Sea Org while he was in the CoS is gathering proof of abuse to give to Debbie's lawyers? But this proof is only to be about DM?

So, if someone had testimony that say...Marty abused them but said that DM told him to would he be interested in that?

Aside from a pathological desire to be the center of attention while proving that he's better than anyone with the initials DM, is there a good reason why Marty is the one gathering these statements?

Indie Scientologists are more confusing that the other kind. I think that I will go examine Ron Org instead.

Marty's gone on the record numerous times about his own hand in the abuse that was/is going on in the cult. As far as I know he's never had charges brought against him by anyone he himself hit or otherwise mistreated, so I don't get the nearly constant demand from exes and anons that he come clean about his own part in it...since he HAS done, over and over in various ways and to various media outlets.

I think Marty is calling for docs because he can. He's an OL in the Indie field and capable of getting through to the people who have the dirt and can actually use it to see Miscavige behind bars.

LA SCN

6th March 2012, 02:43 PM

:omg:
Marty's gone on the record numerous times about his own hand in the abuse that was/is going on in the cult. As far as I know he's never had charges brought against him by anyone he himself hit or otherwise mistreated, so I don't get the nearly constant demand from exes and anons that he come clean about his own part in it...since he HAS done, over and over in various ways and to various media outlets.

I think Marty is calling for docs because he can. He's an OL in the Indie field and capable of getting through to the people who have the dirt and can actually use it to see Miscavige behind bars.

REALLY??

I guess I missed his going on the record detailing the cover-up of the Lisa McPherson murder and his part in it.

Also missed his full account of just how he and the Dwarfmeister REALLY got the IRS to grant the favorable tax status to the church - not the fantasy that was presented to the True Believers.

Oh - I forgot - it's in his book.

Remember, when you say 'clean', we're talking 'clean as a hounds' tooth', right?

Time, place, form and event, right?

Glib still don't fly...:biggrin:

And that Marty is an OL in the Indie field...well, that says a ton about Indies! :omg:

Jquepublic

6th March 2012, 03:13 PM

:omg:

REALLY??

I guess I missed his going on the record detailing the cover-up of the Lisa McPherson murder and his part in it.

Also missed his full account of just how he and the Dwarfmeister REALLY got the IRS to grant the favorable tax status to the church - not the fantasy that was presented to the True Believers.

Oh - I forgot - it's in his book.

Remember, when you say 'clean', we're talking 'clean as a hounds' tooth', right?

Time, place, form and event, right?

Glib still don't fly...:biggrin:

And that Marty is an OL in the Indie field...well, that says a ton about Indies! :omg:

Don't try to lump everything under one banner, it's psychotic in a case like this.

He's gone on the record over and over again about the physical abuses, detainment and torture tactics in active practice at Int base and trickling down the line, including his own part in it. THAT is relevant to this case, nothing else you mention is. Nobody has come forward to file charges against him. Why do you think that is?

He has said that he destroyed evidence in the LM case and has linked DM to that case. Again and again. What you should be ranting about is the lack of an official investigation by the proper authorities into the allegations he made.

As for the IRS, I honestly don't know much about that case nor do I particularly care, other than of course that I think it's a gross misassignment of tax exemption and I've spent many an hour composing letters detailing my opinions on the same.

Love or hate them, the Indies are a force in this scene and are actively working to take out the head of the church. I got nothing but love for them for that exact reason. Whether my love goes away after this case, I can't say. I'm a fickle chick. Hate 'em if you want, I don't really find myself needing to sell you on it.

Terril park

6th March 2012, 04:11 PM

Good ferreting, Terril! Did you notice the request to explain the relationship between the plaintiff and Elliot Abelson in the docs Tony O Posted today?! I think you sniffed out a good one! ;)

Was J Swift who sniffed it out. I read it about a week ago and it didn't occur to me then that it might be important for the various legal actiions. Took me hours to find it again as I couldn't recall where it was posted. Sent it to
Debbie. I expect if its useful they'll need an affidavit from Mr Morton. Its
possible DM's position can be proved by other means.

LA SCN

6th March 2012, 06:24 PM

Good post from todays' Village Voice article:

DeckardCain

I hope Jeffrey knows the full extent of the Rathbun-Rinder credibility problem. They are very familiar with the Church's legal tactics (in particular with the Discovery process) for a reason. They were the engineers/drivers of those previous shady tactics and they may have been deposed themselves in previous litigation.

I am unfamiliar with Texas discovery rules, but if I were Cooks' attorney I would start digging for any applicable sworn statements of Rinder/Rathbun that will contradict their current sworn statements and/or illustrates a potential perjury cause of action.

Although the local hired guns may have (previous to this case) a decent reputation, expect that they will get in the mud and start slinging at EVERYONE involved. I hope Jeffrey reads up on Kenneth Moxon to see just how depraved Scientology's in-house counsel has become. I believe they would expect similar depravity from their outside counsel as well.

With Scientology allowed to bring in witnesses that meet a competency (to the matter being deposed) test, this opens the door for puppets. We've seen how the puppets act on this blog so expect most to perjure themselves in the depos.

I'm really concerned about the Rinder/Rathbun credibility problem. They both have an extensive history of lying for a living and it is guaranteed that they lied under oath at some point in their career. I hope Jeffrey is prepared for that.
This could blow up in our faces...sure hope it don't.

C of $ has been dodging legal bullets for decades and never really been held to account much less atone for its crimes.

Jquepublic

6th March 2012, 06:53 PM

Good post from todays' Village Voice article:

This could blow up in our faces...sure hope it don't.

C of $ has been dodging legal bullets for decades and never really been held to account much less atone for its crimes.

This :

"I am unfamiliar with Texas discovery rules, but if I were Cooks' attorney I would start digging for any applicable sworn statements of Rinder/Rathbun that will contradict their current sworn statements and/or illustrates a potential perjury cause of action."

is a valid point. Good thing Jeffrey is checking the comments section!

Mark A. Baker

6th March 2012, 07:37 PM

This :

"I am unfamiliar with Texas discovery rules, but if I were Cooks' attorney I would start digging for any applicable sworn statements of Rinder/Rathbun that will contradict their current sworn statements and/or illustrates a potential perjury cause of action."

is a valid point. Good thing Jeffrey is checking the comments section!

How'sa 'bout his admission of destruction of evidence in the McPherson case? Not perjury, but certainly impugns character.

More directly on point: anyone have a past legal issue with the church in which Rathbun was involved and committing perjury on behalf of his masters?

Mark A. Baker

Jquepublic

6th March 2012, 07:48 PM

How'sa 'bout his admission of destruction of evidence in the McPherson case? Not perjury, but certainly impugns character.

More directly on point: anyone have a past legal issue with the church in which Rathbun was involved and committing perjury on behalf of his masters?

Mark A. Baker

No idea, Mark, but it sounds like a good area to research - hopefully they've done their own homework on that so it doesn't cause this case to wipe out.

Maybe they can restrict their (R&R) testimony to only those things that pertain to Debbie's trial and the specifics of abuse by DM. Trouble there is that Rinder has been recorded saying he was never touched by DM, etc., so I think his testimony might be easy to discredit. I think they're awre of that, though, don't you? If they thought their testimony alone was enough they wouldn't be calling for affidavits, IMO.

Jquepublic

6th March 2012, 07:57 PM

Apparently they're engaged not as witnesses but advisors and will be present at Monday's depositions in that capacity. That takes the fire out of the "reliable witness" thing we've been discussing.

Interesting comment from John P on Marty's blog re: this

John P. | March 6, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Reply I read the filings carefully. I noticed that Mike and Marty will “be present” at the deposition scheduled to be taken next Monday. Not as witnesses, but presumably as advisers. I have to believe that the Church witness will have to think twice about lying with M&M on either side of Ray Jeffery, Debbie’s attorney. After every question, they can whisper to him, “he’s lying and here’s what to ask next to catch him at it,” or “he’s telling the truth.”

That’s a major positive development in litigation against the Corporate Scientology, since lawyers in the past probably have not had the benefit of “self-propelled e-meters” to call bullshit on the Church’s witnesses in real time. They may not have had the experience to spot lies as they happened. Since it’s hard to go back and re-depose a witness, they then lose lots of chances to attack the credibility of the Church of Scientology, which hurts the odds of success. But now for the first time, real-time lie detection. That should be a game-changer.

I’m thinking you guys can really mess with the witness by randomly whispering stuff in Mr. Jeffery’s ear even when the witness is telling the complete and accurate truth — he’ll be going crazy wondering what lie you have caught him at even when you’re just talking about who you think will win the World Series this year.

Even funnier: a court filing last week published in the Village Voice included a demand that the court forbid Marty and Mike from serving as witnesses in the case. That’s a ridiculous demand that Miscavige undoubtedly ordered the lawyers to include as part of his rabid campaign to deny the Cooks any sort of defense. I remember thinking at the time that it was strange since Mike & Marty were out before the Cooks left in 2007, so they wouldn’t have any direct knowledge of the events at issue in the case. So now it appears that DM got his wish: M&M won’t be witnesses after all. They will be advisors! That’s a way more dangerous role for them to be in. Remember that old saying about, “be careful what you wish for — you might just get it”?

Mark A. Baker

6th March 2012, 08:09 PM

... Scenario 1. File a Summary Judgement. Cost? estimate 33 pages of paper at $800 per hour. Estimate 10 hours to prepare such statement. Cost to file? estimate $400 Court costs for sumary judgement hearing? $500. Lawyer fees for Summary Jugment Hearing? $2,000.Expected probability of win? Comservative Estimate 1 out of a trillion. ...

That's hyperbole worthy of Hubbard. :coolwink:

Mark A. Baker

LA SCN

6th March 2012, 09:42 PM

LA SCN

6th March 2012, 09:52 PM

Apparently they're engaged not as witnesses but advisors and will be present at Monday's depositions in that capacity. That takes the fire out of the "reliable witness" thing we've been discussing.

Interesting comment from John P on Marty's blog re: this

Good read - John P. makes good posts on this.

And boy would I love to see the scilon witness squirming with missed withhold phenomena. :biggrin:

"I’m thinking you guys can really mess with the witness by randomly whispering stuff in Mr. Jeffery’s ear even when the witness is telling the complete and accurate truth — he’ll be going crazy wondering what lie you have caught him at even when you’re just talking about who you think will win the World Series this year."

And keeping M & M far from being witnesses is the only pro-survival move.

Rene Descartes

6th March 2012, 11:27 PM

I am sure that Rathbun and Rinder have told Jeffrey all the dirty "secrets". They worked in legal and know that lawyers don't like surprises.

How sure am I?

50.05%

Rd00

Mark A. Baker

6th March 2012, 11:45 PM

I am sure that Rathbun and Rinder have told Jeffrey all the dirty "secrets". They worked in legal and know that lawyers don't like surprises.

How sure am I?

50.05%

Rd00

Your point is a valid one but I doubt that MRs are telling all the dirty secrets. There is a lot they appear not to want revealed about the church. Part of that prior experience with legal has no doubt also trained them in exactly what not to tell the attorneys.

Mark A. Baker

Rene Descartes

6th March 2012, 11:53 PM

Your point is a valid one but I doubt that MRs are telling all the dirty secrets. There is a lot they appear not to want revealed about the church. Part of that prior experience with legal has no doubt also trained them in exactly what not to tell the attorneys.

Mark A. Baker

Mark,

Are you saying that they would withhold something at the risk of losing the case for Debbie and the one chance, this brief moment in eternity, to take down the Pope on a Rope?

Rd00

Mark A. Baker

7th March 2012, 12:16 AM

Mark,

Are you saying that they would withhold something at the risk of losing the case for Debbie and the one chance, this brief moment in eternity, to take down the Pope on a Rope?

Rd00

I'm saying that any information they are likely to provide this attorney will relate to the specifics of this case. Debbie's case is targeted on fairly recent events and is apparently aimed at targeting Miscavige's responsibility for discredible and possibly criminal actions. It's not a 'core dump' of all things bad about the church.

The MRs know a great deal more about the dirty business of the church than is directly relevant to Debbie's action. I for one do not believe they are willing to reveal all of what they do know about the church, not even to this attorney.

Mark A. Baker

Infinite

7th March 2012, 02:39 AM

..

Is it too much to expect that the M&M Show is providing its services pro bono?

NoName

7th March 2012, 05:09 AM

If Debbie really wants to prove that Scientology held her against her will and intimidated her, all she has to do is to reveal the truth of what she knows about Lisa McPherson.

Lisa was held against her will for 17 days until she died. Debbie Cook knows exactly what went on that led to Lisa's death. She could prove that Scientology has a history of holding people against their will, and that Lisa's story made her fearful for her own life. This would open up the Lisa story again and allow the truth to finally come out in a court of law. (Even though we all know what that truth is already)

Does Debbie Cook really have the personal integrity that she purports to have? Or is this appeal for help really just another selfish Scientologist out to save their own skin, and gather even more free money from others?

Earlier today, Tony Ortega posted his comms with Jeffrey. Jeffrey said some of his legal strategy is comming from VV commenters.

I am protective of my identity and I've never been to Flag so I dunno about Lisa. But if you do know about Debbie being there and want Jeffrey to see it, get on the VV and/or contact him directly. I would say contact him directly and keep contactinguntil you get acks.

Smurf

7th March 2012, 06:59 AM

I wonder if M&M would accept affidavits from Gerry Armstrong... for example?

Anyone that in allergic to bullshit and need to avoid M & M, can send their affidavits directly to Debbie's attorney at rjeffrey@sjmlawyers.com or fax: (830) 438-4958.

degraded being

7th March 2012, 11:57 AM

If anyone is going near M&Ms office, could you pick up a copy of their battleplan for me?

Thanks.

ML
OSA's OSA IC CAPT
Everywhere

LA SCN

7th March 2012, 12:34 PM

Bea Kiddo

7th March 2012, 02:14 PM

As far as I know, all of the people that had to sign a release were videoed/recorded. I am pretty sure that was the case on mine. I think it was recorded. I am curious if these could be produced to see.

I know in mine I was not happy to sign anything. I did it to get out. That was the only way they would let me go.

NoName

7th March 2012, 02:15 PM

Jquepublic

7th March 2012, 02:57 PM

I have a bpc driven zeal to see the c of s reverse engineered and uninstalled from earth culture and its harmful nature fully exposed and effects remedied. This would include the perpetrators of all the criminal acts committed by the church doing the appropriate jail time.

The hell of it is I have an arbitrary on this - a close family member who is a true believer. To restore us to a full relationship will require the above to occur. Time is a factor and I'd like it to happen before I get too old - and I'm already a member of the over the hill gang.

So don't anyone take offense at my posts if they seem a little petulant (insolent or rude in speech or behavior) because I want this Cof$ down NOW and anyone who is 'out' and has the dirt on the Cof$ and is not spilling the beans effectively on it stands between me and a completed family.

Not counting the trolls, we're all on the same team here.

Jus' sayin' :yes:

I should make this same post, though my family isn't in, I still have people that I love there. I get defensive, a little aggressive and sometimes have to step away and think through it to make sure my reactions aren't some cult trigger. It's such a volatile subject for all of us, each for our own very personal and often painful reasons.

You're right - we all are on the same team. I'm sorry for snapping at you earlier in our exchange over Marty. I tend to have a knee jerk reaction to seeing him bashed because I immediately feel suspicious of the source - not because I'm a huge fan but because good grief, he's busting his ass right now to take out Miscavige and so I don't want him slammed by the very people who WANT Miscavige taken out. It almost without fail makes me think OSA OSA OSA and I see red. :omg:

I'll try to temper my reactions though, because I think this is a great group of people and don't want to hurt anyone's feelings if I can avoid it.