ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

David Mayo, Bill Robertson, Robin Scott -More Truth Revealed and Realities uncovered

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by rockyslammer, Apr 14, 2011.

  1. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Things have gotten messy already in the hypothetical.

    Undoubtedly the committee, as an agency of government, could require his testimony. That point is not at question. However, that may not necessarily shield him from the terms of a prior settlement agreement. It might (depending on terms, etc.) put David in a real hard place.

    No one can say anything without actually seeing the agreement. Even then it would take some serious legal talent to locate flaws or loopholes. Not a game for amateurs.

    Courts might reasonably asked if he was 'coerced' why did he not seek to abrogate the agreement years ago when he had escaped from the 'coercive element'.

    As my grandmother use to remind me: if wishes were horses all beggars would ride. :)

    Mark A. Baker
  2. paradox

    paradox ab intra silentio vera

    Oh for gawd's sake. This is as a good a place for hypotheticals and speculation as any. No one's gonna go out and take any of this as godsooth or whatever. Just a place to throw around ideas and such. We're all pretty much intellectual adults here ... well, for the most part anyways.

    Besides. David? David who? "Dave's not here, man." :lol:
  3. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    There is an "old Guard" critic who is a lawyer. He has posted here
    as Tikk and can be found by searching membership here. He hardly ever posts and probably dosn't read here much if at all, but you can send him an E-mail via his membership page.

    One of the smartest guys in the critic scene. Not sure what type of Lawyer he is.

    There are a couple of Lawyers who have experience litigating re CO$.
    One is Ford Greene. You've probably had several PMs telling you their names.
  4. Krautfag

    Krautfag Patron Meritorious

    gosh, it keeps pulling me in

    Okay, everytime I am nearly out of the loop with the silly xenuists, something happens that brings me back. Meh :p

    Hello Gang. :coolwink:

    Hello Mr Mayo.

    First of all, it has to be determined whether it is a "gag order" issued by a court or judge or if the "gag order" derives from a civil agreement/contract between two parties as a part of a business deal.

    The former can be fought easily and you either win or loose fighting it with the constitution, depending on how clever a sneaky weasel your lawyer is.

    The latter is more difficult.

    IF hypothetically spoken one party of the agreement was made to accept it under duress/threats, the whole agreement is void. Meaning there is no gag order, but everything you prolly have received in exchange has to be returned also. Proving the unlawful circumstances is tough, especially when the events are already way back in time.

    Constitutional arguments don't apply here because you issued a waiver on them by signing the agreement.

    A real good (real expensive) lawyer or rather law firm might somehow achieve to void parts of the agreements but going to trial with that is more or less like going to Vegas for gambling.

    Best regards from Germany,
  5. A-non-non-anon

    A-non-non-anon Patron with Honors

    Heck, pick the right day, and you can come raid with us! Staff might not believe the Missionaire Bluff this time, but there's still lulz on offer if you know where to look...

    Also: Fascinating Thread is Fascinating. Pray, continue...
  6. FoTi

    FoTi Crusader

    If you just Google Constitutional Attorneys, there's pages of references to this.

    If you belong to Prepaid Legal (which is really inexpensive - like $17.00 a month, I think), you can call and ask to speak to one of their Constitutional Attorneys for free and ask all the questions you want.
  7. Ulf K. Maier

    Ulf K. Maier Patron Meritorious

    The question we've all been waiting for... :)

    Mr Mayo, IANAL; but, scientology contracts and agreements are notorious for being conceived outside the realm of the common interpretation of existing statutes. Jesse Prince wrote:

    "Now back to Jesse and Marty having a chat at a Chicago café. Marty did most of the talking. He told me about something that I didn’t know but really did appreciate hearing. When I finally left the Sea Org it was on my third attempt. My two previous attempts had failed because I was back. On the two previous attempts I’d fled, like most people do, only to be brought back. I guess third time is a charm because I walked out of there the last time. Marty reminded me of all of the made up declarations I had to sign plus video confessions to be allowed to leave. He told me Dave was so sure that he could sue me into the ground if I ever spoke a word against Scientology that they brought the evidence to the attorneys to get their opinion. The Scientology attorney opined that if this evidence ever got into the hands of law enforcement all involved would go to prison. I guess it was that gross. I don’t have much of a memory of that, my eye was on the door. In all of their brilliance at the application of the black Dianetics and cover your ass legal strategy, everything they had done was illegal, thus useless."

    I would argue additionally that, as in the case of Julian Assange and Wikileaks, US law is not binding outside the US, without diplo-political arm-twisting. Agreements signed in the US may or may not be binding if one or the other parties have since vacated the original location where the agreement was signed. How about plain old "statute of limitations"? Is there a lawyer in the house?

    I think Miscavige will be starting to take his double Scotches a bit earlier in the day, if he hasn't begun to do so already... :dieslaughing:
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2011
  8. afaceinthecrowd

    afaceinthecrowd Gold Meritorious Patron

    IANAL, however, I strongly urge David to seek highly expert, specialty Board Certified counsel regarding this issue.

    Scn does not care what's legal or illegal, right or wrong, just or unjust. Scn only wants to get you in a position where they can grind you down with their pestle of coins on the mortise of the American Legal System.

    I, too, would love for David to able to talk freely and with candor but not at the expense of his current quality of life.

    I'm just happy and thankful that he is here with all of Us, regardless of the current limitations.

  9. anonomog

    anonomog Gold Meritorious Patron

  10. paradox

    paradox ab intra silentio vera

    Not particularly helpful for present hypotheticals, but there is federal pending legislation addressing this particularly egregious practice in the U.S. See the first link below to track the bill's progress. It isn't the first time such legislation has been proposed, but one can always hope (and actively support it):

    S. 623:Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2011
    A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes.
    Congressional Research Service Summary

    The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.

    Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2011 - Amends the federal judicial code to prohibit a court, in any civil action in which the pleadings state facts relevant to the protection of public health or safety, from entering an order restricting the disclosure of information obtained through discovery, approving a settlement agreement that would restrict such disclosure, or restricting access to court records, unless in connection with such order the court has first made independent findings of fact that: (1) the order would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to the protection of public health or safety; or (2) the public interest in the disclosure of past, present, or potential health or safety hazards is outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information, and the requested protective order is no broader than necessary to protect the confidentiality interest asserted. Prohibits a court from approving any party's stipulation or request to stipulate to an order that would violate this Act. Prohibits a court, again in any such civil action, from: (1) approving or enforcing any provision of an agreement between or among parties, or an order entered under this Act, to the extent that it restricts a party from disclosing information to any federal or state agency with authority to enforce laws regulating an activity relating to such information (requires such information disclosed to a federal or state agency to be confidential to the extent provided by law); or (2) enforcing any provision of a settlement agreement described under this Act between or among parties to such civil action that prohibits a party from disclosing that a settlement was reached or the terms of the settlement, other than the amount paid, or from discussing the civil action, or evidence produced in it, that involves matters relevant to the protection of public health or safety. Excepts from this enforcement prohibition (thus allowing enforcement of) a settlement agreement provision about which the court finds that the public interest in the disclosure of past, present, or potential health or safety hazards is outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information or records in question, and the requested protective order is no broader than necessary to protect the confidentiality interest asserted. Creates a rebuttable presumption that the interest in protecting personally identifiable information relating to an individual's financial, health, or other similar information outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, require, or authorize the disclosure of classified information, as defined under the Classified Information Procedures Act.
  11. paradox

    paradox ab intra silentio vera

    The phrase "any civil action in which the pleadings state facts relevant to the protection of public health or safety" should not be construed to rule out mental health or safety. If you google the subject you'll find, for example, that recent cases involving Catholic priests is mentioned in this context, where the church was able to have cases (partial or full, I forget) involving molestation sealed, which had the records been available could have prevented further harm to minors found to have been later molested by subjects who'd been tried for the same/similar offense earlier. There are other example of "protection of public health or safety"; I should think the CO$ more than qualifies in many instances.

    Not having read the entire bill, I don't know if there is any retroactive provision.
  12. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    On this I have dear friend who has terminal cancer. She had extremely severe reactions of nausea to chemo etc.

    She has had all medicines to handle this and none worked.

    Cannabis did.

    She takes, I think a quarter teaspoon of peanut butter imbued with Cannabis. It works!

    Apparently there are many varieties of cannabis some useeful in some areas others usefull in others.

    She's happy I'll be posting this here. She is class VI.
  13. Robin Scott

    Robin Scott Patron

    Thanks for this, Terril - very interesting.

    Certainly, the use of cannabis in relieving the horrible side effects of chemotherapy is well documented, and one of the most widely accepted medicinal uses of this extraordinary healing herb. I'm delighted to learn that your good friend is finding it therapeutic in this respect.

    There is also emerging evidence that cannabis can help to prevent cancer, by keeping the immune system in good shape, and even that it may help to alleviate the development of symptoms. I wouldn't go so far as to claim that it is a cure for cancer; but it may well be the nearest thing we have to it so far.

    I think Scientology did us all a disservice by demonising drugs indiscrimately, despite LRH's long history of personal drug abuse. LSD, mushrooms, Ecstasy and cannabis all have valuable therapeutic functions, if taken in moderation and used intelligently and responsibly. Of course, both the Church and Rathbun's groupies harp on about my involvement with cannabis in a misguided attempt to discredit me (as if I care) but the truth is that I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that cannabis is far more beneficial than Scientology!

    Warmest regards, Robin
  14. David Mayo

    David Mayo Patron with Honors

    I definitely need you to guide me through this jungle of nuances!

    And a fine job you've been doing!
  15. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    Mark has had a LOT of experience sliding through the jungle of nuances. He should make a very good guide. :D :giggle: :clever:


    Sorry Mark. David knows not what he gets himself into with you in tow. :help2: :study: :study:
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2011
  16. AnonyMary

    AnonyMary Formerly Fooled - Finally Free

    Yes, unless overturned or amended in a court of law where those considerations are reviewed and the gag lifted or amended.

    Gag and confidentiality agreements, whether decided in court with a judge or done in private by 2 or more parties, without the court's required consent, are common. An attorney representing a person is supposed to advise them of all the consequences of signing one. If the attorney knew of such threats and did not report them to the court or authorities, they are complicit in the threat.

    Here is some info on gag agreements, gag orders and confidentiality agreements that may show the complexity of these things when being entered into. However, once signed, it requires the person to bring it up before the court for review and justice.

    Gag Orders - A survey of the law
    The imposition of gag orders on trial participants is a relatively modern phenomenon in the law. Below is a circuit-by-circuit and state-by-state listing of cases that have directly addressed the issue of gag orders on trial participants. Only about half of all states have directly addressed the issue in reported cases.

    Washington, DCJune 1-2, 2009 AGENDA Books/Standing/ST2009-06.pdf


    There is substantial concern over courts sealing settlement agreements.
    1 This article describes how the Federal Judicial Center conducted
    some research on the matter as it pertains to federal civil cases at the request of a United States senator and the Civil Rules Advisory Committee.2
    We found that the sealing of settlement agreements in federal courts is rare,
    and that typically the only part of the court record kept secret by the sealing
    of a settlement agreement is the amount of settlement.

    South Carolina
    Rule 41.1
    Sealing Documents and Settlement Agreements
    Last amended by Order dated May 5, 2003.

    Jan. 15, 2003
    Secret Settlements
    South Carolina Takes Steps To Stop Secret Court Settlements

    CBS) Secrecy is bought and sold in some American courtrooms, a leading
    and respected federal judge has said, and people are dying, possibly
    because of decisions made by judges
  17. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    There have been over the years occasional posts black PRing you with regard to the cultivation of cannabis. Very possibly they didn't know it was for medical use, and in fact it seems you were ahead of your time with that.

    My friend is actually able to buy it legally in the US from a specialist cannabis shop.

    As you don't appear to have been on the net in scn related circles for a long time I'll retell an interesting story re the upper levels. Years ago OSA
    started interfering with peoples ability to write anonymously on the net
    by taking down a server that was then in Finland. In doing so they pissed
    of Karin Spaink and her friends in Holland, IIRC exposing private mail or something. Karin put the upper levels on the Net in Holland and Zenon Parnousis mirrored them in Sweden. They got legally attacked by OSA
    who also acted as matchmaker, and they became partners. At the time thousands of copies of the upper levels were delivered from the Swedish court system. After 4 or 5 legal attacks, OSA backed of in the last one as they were in a no win situation, and the Dutch court actually followed it up
    and iether changed the law or enforced that freedom of speech and religion trumps copyright. Now one can access just about any scn materials from a dutch server. Also Clearbird which is the bridge both sides up to OT 4
    re written is available also.
  18. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Isn't it amazing that the C of S, doing exactly what LRH tells them to do per the policies on "handling enemies & criticism", actually MAKES THINGS WORSE FOR THEMSELVES, day after day, year after year?

    It seems that as long as they keep doing what they are doing, "standardly" using all of that dumb OSA-tech, they can't help but eventually shut themselves down! :thumbsup:

  19. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    I like that pic. It has a slight surreal nuance to it.
  20. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Not actually, BB. Only effectively.

    The federal government still considers it to be a crime. In California state laws permits the selling and use of cannabis for medical reasons. I believe that this is also true in a few other states, but I couldn't tell you which ones offhand. .

    The Feds aren't happy with the states who permit it. Neither have they been terribly aggressive at pursuing the 'medical marijuana' communities in those states where state law permits it. The legal issues are complex, quelle surprise, and chasing after cancer patients eating brownies is hardly politically popular. Neither is the use of medical marijuana a hugely problematic aspect of drug related crime. Hence, their is little political will to push the issue except among the moral 'blue noses' and those who would have government regulate lifestyles (but not corporations).

    Mark A. Baker