Jan Eastgate - presumed innocent

[Royal Prince Xenu]

I do love you, RPX!

The plea comes before the prosecution must "show cause". The plea won't be delayed 2 years. It may be delayed a few months, but I doubt it. The prosecution will be in position to file any necessary particulars, if requested, promptly. It's not a complicated charge or set of facts.

In the personal cases I cited above, the Prosecution were the ones who held up the procedures. To make it even more ridiculous, the police had the actual trial postponed because their "expert" witness thought a night out on the town was more important than a plane-flight to do his job. It took months just to get the police statements together, and the amount of copied homework that showed up in those statements left me very dis-enamored of the NSW judicial system.

Just because this is a higher Court, I'm not expecting to see any improvement in competence.

[clamicide]

I don't know if this person is troll or serious. I don't pay attention to that stuff. The thing is, if someone is in cult mindset to any extent (and I feel bad saying that the OP might be still having that), this IS the automatic response. Life becomes damage control. Life becomes saying the right thing. Everything has to be adjusted in order to make sure the VFP occurs. And I've seen those coming out of the cult who operate by the same rules.

I'm no longer there. I might do or say shit that might not 'be in alignment' with whatever agenda others have worked out to take down the cult. I did agendas. I don't any more.

I've also worked in corporate situations--nowhere as bad as being in a cult; at least they were up-front about the strategies. I don't play those games anymore. I could see where some would balk about totally speaking the truth or expressing their feelings because it doesn't fit a paradigm. But, some of us didn't speak out when we knew something was 'off'. So, yeah, we're going to get pissed and post because we've had "earlier similars". If you haven't been there, you cannot know what that feels like. It can eat away at you once you 'wake up'.

So, fuck the assumption of innocence for those of us who know that is how the cult operates. And the sad thing is, I believe that Jan seriously thought she was doing what was 'right'. I totally believe she thought she was preserving the eternal freedom of all those involved. That's part of what really sucks about Scientology

[Smilla]

I don't know if this person is troll or serious. I don't pay attention to that stuff. The thing is, if someone is in cult mindset to any extent (and I feel bad saying that the OP might be still having that), this IS the automatic response. Life becomes damage control. Life becomes saying the right thing. Everything has to be adjusted in order to make sure the VFP occurs. And I've seen those coming out of the cult who operate by the same rules.

I'm no longer there. I might do or say shit that might not 'be in alignment' with whatever agenda others have worked out to take down the cult. I did agendas. I don't any more.

I've also worked in corporate situations--nowhere as bad as being in a cult; at least they were up-front about the strategies. I don't play those games anymore. I could see where some would balk about totally speaking the truth or expressing their feelings because it doesn't fit a paradigm. But, some of us didn't speak out when we knew something was 'off'. So, yeah, we're going to get pissed and post because we've had "earlier similars". If you haven't been there, you cannot know what that feels like. It can eat away at you once you 'wake up'.

So, fuck the assumption of innocence for those of us who know that is how the cult operates. And the sad thing is, I believe that Jan seriously thought she was doing what was 'right'. I totally believe she thought she was preserving the eternal freedom of all those involved. That's part of what really sucks about Scientology

Great post.

OP is a doubleplusgood duckspeaker.

[oneonewasaracecar]

Sydney Anon here. OP is mistaken. We have been protesting for 3 years and no one has been sued.

We've been assaulted, hugged, kissed, sexually propositioned and had coffee and beer thrown at us. Never sued. Scientology Sydney are like drunk men in a pub. They grope, jostle and complain, but they can't get it together enough for a lawsuit.

We didn't get sued when we talked about Rex Fowler, or Mark Hanna or anything else. And we used megaphones. There has even been partial nudity at some protests.

I reccomend you take 10 milligrams of trollzinax every 2 hours.

[Peter Soderqvist]

Jan Eastgate - presumed innocent until proven otherwise means she doesn’t have to prove a thing, the prosecutor has the burden of proof to prove she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and her lawyer’s duty is to disprove the prosecutor’s evidence . Likewise it is a defamation to claim that a Critic is guilty of crimes without evidence. “Nattering” or criticism against Scientology is not evidence of crimes against Scientology, a cultist has to put up real charges, or shut up his defamation.

[degraded being]

Jan Eastgate - presumed innocent until proven otherwise means she doesn’t have to prove a thing, the prosecutor has the burden of proof to prove she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and her lawyer’s duty is to disprove the prosecutor’s evidence . Likewise it is a defamation to claim that a Critic is guilty of crimes without evidence. “Nattering” or criticism against Scientology is not evidence of crimes against Scientology, a cultist has to put up real charges, or shut up his defamation.

I don't know how this affects what you're saying, but I have just realised that when people are accused and put in the courtroom, it often IS up to them to prove their innocence. Many who were not able to do so have been put in the slammer for sump'n they didn't do. It depends on what the prosecutors/lawyers have to argue with, and a few other things whether or not someone has to prove their innocence.
I'm not saying Big Jane is innocent; she and her mind mafia mates can't sit back hoping that the SPs run by Big Pharma and the Psychs cannot prove she done wrong.

[Peter Soderqvist]

I don't know how this affects what you're saying, but I have just realized that when people are accused and put in the courtroom, it often IS up to them to prove their innocence.

Soderqvist1: I don’t know how its work in Australia, but I work as a security guard here in Sweden and know something about it. If prosecutor claim that A has hit B without any witnesses, but a medical examination in evidence has shown injuries of B, which is in accord with what B has claimed, then it is up to A’s lawyer to disprove it, if A has no alibi then it is likely that A will be found guilty. You cannot exclude that B is mistaken in his identification of A, or B is simply lying even if the court found B credible, or the doctor is bribed, such kinds of doubts is not reasonable. If you require such strong evidence, close to nobody will be found guilty of crimes, because such strong evidence seldom exist.

Many who were not able to do so have been put in the slammer for sump'n they didn't do. It depends on what the prosecutors/lawyers have to argue with, and a few other things whether or not someone has to prove their innocence.

Soderqvist1: Does the court also know they are innocent, or do you have a special insight, or knowledge which the court doesn’t have? Some persons may be innocent, but I have no reason to believe that they are above exceptions, at least here in Sweden.

I'm not saying Big Jane is innocent; she and her mind mafia mates can't sit back hoping that the SPs run by Big Pharma and the Psychs cannot prove she done wrong.

Soderqvist1: I don’t doubt that she will be found guilty!

[degraded being]

Soderqvist1: Does the court also know they are innocent, or do you have a special insight, or knowledge which the court doesn’t have? Some persons may be innocent, but I have no reason to believe that they are above exceptions, at least here in Sweden.


No, i have no special insight. Just several cases in NZ where people who were locked up were found years later, after evidence emerged, to have been innocent.
DNA testing has contributed to this, but it has not always been DNA evidence which has revealed that a person who was "guilty" was found later to be "innocent", sometimes after, or during imprisonment. Being the wrong color in some countries has meant having to work harder to prove innocence.