Jan Eastgate - presumed innocent

[ClamSource]

So, with all your knowledge and know how, why did you post this thread?

I've seen a number of recent posts referring to the Jan Eastgate allegations as if they were fact. This is unfortunate, as I've stated:

* It exposes the posters to libel suits - from Eastgate and Scienology Inc
* It exposes the boards to libel suits - from Eastgate and Scienology Inc
* It creates a difficult situation for the prosecution, when the defense can argue witnesses have been tampered with

As I've said, I could care less to disabuse the ignorance of people outside Australia.

I'm concerned though that denial of Eastgate the presumption of innocence within Australia may hurt the cause of dismantling Scientology's abuses.

[freethinker]

You really think the church is going to attempt to do any of those things as if they had a legal standing?

Do you know what witness tampering is?

I've seen a number of recent posts referring to the Jan Eastgate allegations as if they were fact. This is unfortunate, as I've stated:

* It exposes the posters to libel suits - from Eastgate and Scienology Inc
* It exposes the boards to libel suits - from Eastgate and Scienology Inc
* It creates a difficult situation for the prosecution, when the defense can argue witnesses have been tampered with

As I've said, I could care less to disabuse the ignorance of people outside Australia.

I'm concerned though that denial of Eastgate the presumption of innocence within Australia may hurt the cause of dismantling Scientology's abuses.

[ClamSource]

You really think the church is going to attempt to do any of those things as if they had a legal standing?

It's perfectly possible. Particularly as "the purpose of a law suit is not to win but harass".

Do you know what witness tampering is?

No. I just use words I don't know what they mean for the fun of it.

I mean tamper as commonly understood, as in, to interfere with their testimony. If you want the definition per the Crimes Act, I'd have to look it up.

[apocalyptic]

I've seen a number of recent posts referring to the Jan Eastgate allegations as if they were fact. This is unfortunate, as I've stated:

* It exposes the posters to libel suits - from Eastgate and Scienology Inc
* It exposes the boards to libel suits - from Eastgate and Scienology Inc
* It creates a difficult situation for the prosecution, when the defense can argue witnesses have been tampered with

As I've said, I could care less to disabuse the ignorance of people outside Australia.

I'm concerned though that denial of Eastgate the presumption of innocence within Australia may hurt the cause of dismantling Scientology's abuses.

Speaking then... of the ignorance of the people...: if you are being honest, 'you' are being ignorant. And if you are being dis-honest, 'you' are being ignorant (and arrogant).

Do the math.

It doesn't look good (for you). As it doesn't look good for Jan (either).

Apocalyptic

[ClamSource]

Speaking then... of the ignorance of the people...: if you are being honest, 'you' are being ignorant. And if you are being dis-honest, 'you' are being ignorant (and arrogant).

Do the math.

It doesn't look good (for you). As it doesn't look good for Jan (either).

Apocalyptic

Unless you care to point out *where* I'm being ignorant, it's just an ad hom. Water off a duck's back old bean.

[Mick Wenlock]

I've seen a number of recent posts referring to the Jan Eastgate allegations as if they were fact. This is unfortunate, as I've stated:

* It exposes the posters to libel suits - from Eastgate and Scienology Inc
* It exposes the boards to libel suits - from Eastgate and Scienology Inc
* It creates a difficult situation for the prosecution, when the defense can argue witnesses have been tampered with

As I've said, I could care less to disabuse the ignorance of people outside Australia.

I'm concerned though that denial of Eastgate the presumption of innocence within Australia may hurt the cause of dismantling Scientology's abuses.

It does not expose the board.

AS for a "libel" suit - Once again you seem to be puffing up OSA - it is not easy either to file a libel suit nor to prosecute one.

You are pursuing a total red herring - as to why you are doing only you would know. There is absolutely no requirement under common law for a general "presumption of innocence" where on earth did you get this from? There is only the requirement that someone serving on a jury realize that the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty - it is not up to the defendant to prove his or her innocence.

Eastgate has been accused of a heinous and unspeakable crime, she has been named as someone who persuaded and bullied a child into covering up sexual molestation and the victim has sworn out that statement as has a witness.

Thats just a recitation of the facts.

I would stop quaking in your boots if I were you and worry about something real instead of some manufactured worry.

[Terril park]

Default Re: Jan Eastgate - presumed innocent

Quote Originally Posted by freethinker:-

" You really think the church is going to attempt to do any of those things as if they had a legal standing?"

Clamsource:-

"It's perfectly possible. Particularly as "the purpose of a law suit is not to win but harass"."

Weird.

[freethinker]

I'd like to see how far harrasing gets them in Austrailia. I would bet not very far.

Default Re: Jan Eastgate - presumed innocent

Quote Originally Posted by freethinker:-

" You really think the church is going to attempt to do any of those things as if they had a legal standing?"

Clamsource:-

"It's perfectly possible. Particularly as "the purpose of a law suit is not to win but harass"."

Weird.

[Royal Prince Xenu]

I've seen a number of recent posts referring to the Jan Eastgate allegations as if they were fact. This is unfortunate, as I've stated:

* It exposes the posters to libel suits - from Eastgate and Scientology Inc
* It exposes the boards to libel suits - from Eastgate and Scientology Inc
* It creates a difficult situation for the prosecution, when the defense can argue witnesses have been tampered with

As I've said, I could care less to disabuse the ignorance of people outside Australia.

I'm concerned though that denial of Eastgate the presumption of innocence within Australia may hurt the cause of dismantling Scientology's abuses.

"Contaminated" may have been a better choice of word.

I knew Phoebe when these "alleged" events first transpired----it all happened right under my nose while I was in blissful ignorance. I didn't even know that Carmen existed at that time.

Some years later, via connections that I shan't publicise, I became aware of the abuse but still unaware of the potential Defendant's role in the affair.

With all apologies to Carmen, does anyone understand just how betrayed I feel? Or how guilty because of ignorant complicity?

As requested in the OP, please do watch what is said that may affect a future Jury.

RPX

[Jump]

Default Re: Jan Eastgate - presumed innocent

Quote Originally Posted by freethinker:-

" You really think the church is going to attempt to do any of those things as if they had a legal standing?"

Clamsource:-

"It's perfectly possible. Particularly as "the purpose of a law suit is not to win but harass"."

Weird.

Hubbard is weird for saying that?

I agree.