Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo (Debbie Cook Case)

[afaceinthecrowd]

Hooray!!

Isn't it amazing how those SP, DB, downstat wog lawyers and a bitter, defrocked SP apostate can be so clever when they're up against the elite, clear/OT Sea Org planet clearers who have no case on post and are always upstat!!!

Man, I think I'm gonna wind up loosing dough on my Popcorn Futures...I keep eating up all the profits.

There's a reason why Scn has always had a very small and tenuous footprint in Texas.

Texas ain't no SoCal, NorCal or a suburb of NYC like Florida.

Scn is getting a crash course in Lone Star Law and Culture.

“No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a-comin‘“. Texas Ranger Motto

Let 'er Buck!!!

Face

[HelluvaHoax!]

Hooray!!

Isn't it amazing how those SP, DB, downstat wog lawyers and a bitter, defrocked SP apostate can be so clever when they're up against the elite, clear/OT Sea Org planet clearers who have no case on post and are always upstat!!!

Agreed.

In the Debbie Cook litigation, the cult has "no case".

[afaceinthecrowd]

Agreed.

In the Debbie Cook litigation, the cult has "no case".

Youze sooo clever, HH.

[scooter]

Oh happy day

Wee Slappy McSavage just got bitch-slapped AGAIN by Debbie.

Dave, look at it as a learning curve - once they fit you with an orange jump-suit, You'll be getting a lot of that from a lot of BIG men.

Oh, and start practicing holding Your ankles - Your arms won't get so sore that way.

[Free to shine]

Comments on the question of stalking:

Gerard Plourde 1 hour ago

i agree with your analysis concerning the choice of law/choice of procedure issue. It appears that in trying to gain an advantage by having the judge apply foreign law the COS left itself wide open to the quick deposition process.

I also think that the local attorneys for the COS have to be sweating somewhat over the surveillance issue. Can anyone find out what if anything the Texas code of professional conduct may say about an attorney's duty to prevent illegal behavior by a client? A big paycheck from the COS would be worth far less if the attorneys end up before a bar disciplinary committee.

John P. 1 hour ago in reply to Gerard Plourde

From Texas Disciplinary Rules of Processional Conduct, Rule 1.02 (“Scope and Objectives of Representation”)

"(c) A lawyer shall not assist or counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. A lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel and represent a client in connection with the making of a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

(d) When a lawyer has confidential information clearly establishing that a client is likely to commit a criminal or fraudulent act that is likely to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, the lawyer shall promptly make reasonable efforts under the circumstances to dissuade the client from committing the crime or fraud.

(e) When a lawyer has confidential information clearly establishing that the lawyer's client has committed a criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services have been used, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts under the circumstances to persuade the client to take corrective action."

----------

(C) says that a lawyer can’t actually help his client do anything bad. (D) says that when the client says they are going to do something bad, the lawyer must tell his client
not to do that. (E) requires a lawyer, when he gets information that the client has done something criminal, to ask the client politely to repair the damage from his criminal action.

None of it says that the attorney is responsible for actually preventing the action, just that the attorney must make a reasonable effort to persuade them to stop. Lots of wiggle room on that front, and no penalty for failure to actually stop them. So I doubt Mr. Spencer will be up on charges even if there is a fair amount of bad behavior from his clients. The path out of the woods for Mr. Spencer would likely be to withdraw from the case if his client acts badly enough.

Even if the Church told Mr. Spencer that they were going to do this surveillance (I'm sure they didn't), the key issue in determining whether disciplinary action could be brought is whether this type of surveillance is a crime. The code section only deals with "crime" and "fraud." It doesn't deal with "repugnant, disgusting low-life behavior."

I am not going to take a stab at whether the surveillance Mr. Jeffery has experienced is a crime. If "stalking" but not "surveillance" is a crime, then it would have to be established that the Church is "stalking," which I would assume would involve direct protection from an interested individual (i.e., a psycho ex husband). Hiring licensed professional private investigators to do surveillance for you may specifically be excluded from the definition of "stalking."

[Free to shine]

Some more comments

WWP_Anon 5

I hate to be the sayer of nays here, but we need to proceed with this
party with a certain amount of caution. Those of us who have been doing
this for a while have been down this road before and it rarely leads
where we would like. This time we don't have exes suing or anons
involved, we have Scientologists vs CoS. What they intend to do and
what outcome they wish for is entirely different than any lawsuit we
have seen to date.

Further, Mike, Debbie and Marty have a vested interest in keeping some
things secret. All of them are in some way involved in some of the
crimes of the cult. They are also the creators of some of the most
brilliant tactics designed to protect the cult.

This is posturing, a game of chicken where none of the parties involved
can afford for their crimes to come to light. Miscavige cannot take the
stand, nor will he. Debbie cannot allow him to be, otherwise some of her
own crimes, namely the Lisa McPherson death, will be made public. It
won't happen folks, they all have too much dirt on one another to ever
allow this to proceed. They would all lose.

My guess is that this will all be disposed of quietly and without
sorrow, behind closed doors and we will never know what really happened.

It is what they do.

Kroyce88

I met with Kathy True last September in an attempt to get some agreement where my children would not be forced by OSA (the church's Office of Special Affairs) to disconnect from me and my husband. She would never answer my questions. She was only interested in telling me that my observations of the church were incorrect and that she had first hand knowledge that any problems had been corrected and that the whole Ideal Org scene, for one, was doing exceptionally well. Later, during a phone call, she told me that ever since Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder had left the church, unprecedented expansion had taken place, indicating that they were the "SPs" on the lines that were keeping the church from further expansion. She made NO MENTION of Debbie Cook, but Debbie Cook was still the Captain of FSO after Mike and Marty left. So, how come the church was having unprecedented expansion while Debbie was still there?? Now, Debbie is included in the statement of unprecedented expansion taking place only AFTER she was gotten off the lines. Kathy also lied to me about the circumstances under which Lisa McPherson was brought to the Fort Harrison where she died a short while later.

Chuck Beatty 46 minutes ago

Points that stick out to me:

a) Debbie Cook, is still factually a Scientologist, per the Scientology belief system. She was trying to play by the rules, and she's trying even now, to limit violation of the extensive Hubbad "ethics rules."

b) Debbie's email is still in any case, a violation of several of the "SP rules", most importantly overall her email unfortunately does leave no doubt that Miscavige, the highest church officer, is the one currently in the wrong. And doubly unfortunately, Hubbard's "SP rules" include a phrase that precludes Scientologists from taking any actions to "save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology." (page 313, 2007 edition of the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" book by L. Ron Hubbard, their most recent public printing of their "ethics" rules. [Hubbard's self-protecting rules preclude anyone publicly criticizing the highest church officers,especially not publicly and the only correct way to criticize is with Knowledge Reports or to Committees of Evidence, and her email isn't the correct way to correct Miscavige, the Hubbard scriptures how to correct Miscavige is technically a 1959 tape lecture, Individuation, which means another of the higher officers needs to sit Miscavige down and give him a tailor made Sec Check and factually force him to atone for Miscavige's transgression through Security Checking, that is the ONLY Hubbard allowed internal avenue, other than two lesser policies, Knowledge Reports has a general statement of how one is to put ethics pressure on one's superiors as needed at times, and there's "Corrupt Activities" policy also of 1982 like the Knowlege Reports PL is, where Hubbard says sitting down with the culprit in private and having a stern confrontation. Both a stern confrontation with Miscavige should be done, and intense Security Checking with a tailor made Security Check digging right into Miscaviges known transgresssion. Of historical note, Jesse Prince executed a Sec Check on Miscavige as ordered by LRH, years earlier. That is the precedent and the above are what are technically scripturally what I would have told whoever asked me, if I were asked what to do with Miscavige, from my "expert" knowledge of the standard Hubbard options.

The movement top ranks have NO one to do the "standard" actions on Miscavige, the stern confrontation and the Security Checking, to flush out Miscavige's scriptures violations.

I urge the LAWYER to ask during the Deposition, IF they excommunicated her BEFORE suing her?

Because if that is the case, they violated their own scriptures. The sequence should be excommunicate first, sue secondly. If done the other way around, it violates Hubbard scriptures.

c) Otherwise these list of deposition questions look good, they'll prove that official Scientology has violated outrageously Hubbard's own clearcut orders, specifically page 363 of the 2007 edition of the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" book by L. Ron Hubbard, where after the full listing of the Hubbard "ethics gradients" are listed, Hubbard states:

"Note that none of it carries any physical punishment or detention."

- L. Ron Hubbard

Debbie might not be going about handling Miscavige in the technically correct Hubbard scriptures way, but absolutely Debbie is a Scientologist, and she means well for the Scientology organization.

[Mark A. Baker]

Oh happy day

Wee Slappy McSavage just got bitch-slapped AGAIN by Debbie.

Dave, look at it as a learning curve - once they fit you with an orange jump-suit, You'll be getting a lot of that from a lot of BIG men.

Oh, and start practicing holding Your ankles - Your arms won't get so sore that way.

Too much glee, Scoot. This is a matter of civil law NOT criminal law. There are no orange jump-suits or shower room calisthenics in play in this. The most that is at stake is financial restitution and as an additional (and very remote) possibility the prospect of backing the church into a position where Miscavige needs to be displaced. There is nothing here relating to a criminal prosecution.


Mark A. Baker

[Kutta]

Too much glee, Scoot. This is a matter of civil law NOT criminal law. There are no orange jump-suits or shower room calisthenics in play in this. The most that is at stake is financial restitution and as an additional (and very remote) possibility the prospect of backing the church into a position where Miscavige needs to be displaced. There is nothing here relating to a criminal prosecution.


Mark A. Baker

That sounds unreasonably tame given that torture, kidnap, etc are surely criminal offenses that will be spotlighted.

[freethinker]

Civil can turn into criminal especially in Texas but I think you like the idea that it is civil and not criminal.

Too much glee, Scoot. This is a matter of civil law NOT criminal law. There are no orange jump-suits or shower room calisthenics in play in this. The most that is at stake is financial restitution and as an additional (and very remote) possibility the prospect of backing the church into a position where Miscavige needs to be displaced. There is nothing here relating to a criminal prosecution.


Mark A. Baker

[scooter]

Too much glee, Scoot. This is a matter of civil law NOT criminal law. There are no orange jump-suits or shower room calisthenics in play in this. The most that is at stake is financial restitution and as an additional (and very remote) possibility the prospect of backing the church into a position where Miscavige needs to be displaced. There is nothing here relating to a criminal prosecution.


Mark A. Baker

Killjoy

I hope however that having these crimes of DM publicized like this will result in the relevant law-enforcement authorities actually taking action and charging the cancerous little gnome with His offences.