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

[Mimsey Borogrove]

OK Legal Beagles, what if the church decides to send people not qualified to respond to the deposition's questions, not to provide the documents and videos etc. What leverage does the court have - say they are in contempt of court? What good is that if the church decides to stone wall them? What else can they do to force the church to comply?

Mimsey

[Free to shine]

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.

Comment on VV article:

Dear FBI,

Please thank Mr. Jeffrey for putting together a case for you to go after scientology.

What has taken you more than 4 years to investigate, Mr. Jeffrey has done in only a few weeks.

Your Welcome and ML,

Derfty Derp

[Infinite]

..

[freethinker]

Because Jeffrey will have evidence to show they are lying.

OK Legal Beagles, what if the church decides to send people not qualified to respond to the deposition's questions, not to provide the documents and videos etc. What leverage does the court have - say they are in contempt of court? What good is that if the church decides to stone wall them? What else can they do to force the church to comply?

Mimsey

[freethinker]

Can't see the pic can you change the format?

..

[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.

That would be nice, however law enforcement will only prosecute in the event of being able to make a good legal case for conviction. Rules of evidence and standards necessary for conviction are different in criminal cases than from civil. You may recall that OJ walked in criminal court but was held financially liable in civil.

Many of those best in a position to provide useful testimony in exposing criminal activities (MRs, etc.) remain apparently unwilling to cooperate fully with authorities on complete criminal investigations.

It may happen, but that is definitely not a necessary result.


Mark A. Baker

[Div6]

[RogerB]

Another brilliant comment from John P. (God, I love this guy.)

....................

From the high level, this is delightful fun. But some of the details of these filings are utterly awesome. Lawyering at its finest.

Snipped . . . .

* “Vexatious Litigant” claim: The opening of the motion to compel is remarkable because the first paragraph calls the Church a “vexatious litigant.” This is a very specific legal term for somebody who files a lot of bogus lawsuits, clogging up the court system. Usually, it’s a specific legal status that is assigned by the Court meaning that the party has been ordered not to file additional litigation without prior permission by the court. Mr. Jeffery is citing a lot of press references, not legal cases to establish that the Church is a vexatious litigant. And he’s not moving for that status here. He’s just putting this issue at the top of the (presumably new) judge’s mind to try to establish skepticism about their motives and maneuvering in what follows, especially in case the judge that hears this motion is ultimately assigned the entire case under the Court’s “complex case” rule.

When I’ve seen this term used before, the plaintiffs are usually either insane (little old ladies suing every person in their neighborhood for billions of dollars over the noise of sprinklers coming on too early in the morning) or prisoners with nothing better to do than file bizarre lawsuits (I remember a couple years ago some guy in jail who sued Google and Yahoo for using the Internet to steal his thoughts). So to label a corporate entity as a vexatious litigant is to call them insane as an organization. A nice touch!

Snipped . . .

.

Hmm, interesting . . . I wonder why this is.

I know for a fact that his office was made aware of the actual citations of holdings by an earlier Court that the Cof$ is deemed a Vexatious Litigant.

It is very interesting to be seeing the way this is playing out, and the strategies involved.

Gotta LUV our Debbie's wunda attorney

Where's that serving wench with my popcorn!?

R

[Mark A. Baker]

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

I actually don't care much about either. I haven't a dog in this fight.

I left 30 years ago. The church is not important to me. My only remaining interest in the church is to see an end to the abuse. I don't see this civil case as likely to affect that matter very much. Maybe shift a few deckchairs around. That's about it.

Beyond ending the abuse, whether the church continues or not, whether Miscavige is top dog or not, is of no particular interest to me. I just don't care about the existence of the church or the name of the chairman of the board. No interest. People have a right to do stupid things. If they want a church run on lrh's green & white that's their choice. If they want to worship hubbard as the second coming of harry potter, more power to them.

Unlike some on the board, I'm not on a last ditch campaign to save mankind, either on behalf of the church or from it.

Cook, Rathbun, Rinder, Miscavige, are all part of the same gang of crooks as far as I can see. All are culpable in the abuses, if not equally culpable. Just as none of them are my enemies, neither are any of them my allies.

The only thing I would like to see come out of Cook's case, and I see this as a really really long shot, definitely not something to pin one's hopes upon, is the possiblity of establishing a legal precedent which could lead to overturning other church NDAs more generally. I don't see that as at all likely to occur but I would like that very much should it occur. Hope springs eternal. There are people whom I regard as friends who are bound by such agreements. Anything which serves to undermine their force in law I would see as to the good.

Enjoy your oppterm. It's not something I choose to share.


Mark A. Baker

[Terril park]

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

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...2/03/debbie_co ok_ups.php


Debbies Lawyers are asking for deposition on monday.

Part of the papers filed contain this:-

" At stake were their rights among other things to practice
their religious beliefs, to express themselves, to associate with friends and family, to testify on their own behalf, and to reprt
criminal activities to the authorities."