Debbie's lawyer looking for help from Dave's victims

[Mimsey Borogrove]

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

[Lone Star]

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]

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]

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

[LA SCN]

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]

GoNuke,
Pete cartoon and reality.

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



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

[Rene Descartes]

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]

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?

Rd00

[Jquepublic]

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]

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