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 www.exscn2.net.



Debbie Cook strikes back

Discussion in 'Debbie Cook' started by Mike Laws, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. Mike Laws

    Mike Laws Patron Meritorious

  2. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Nice, sane write-up in the VV and sane comments on the part of the attorney.

    I wonder if Peggy has yet gotten pissed enough to counter sue on grounds of the CofS's malicious misuse of Jurisprudence.

    It's time to put that issue of the record.

    R
     
  3. Mick Wenlock

    Mick Wenlock Admin Emeritus (retired)

    Interesting piece, I like the lawyer!
     
  4. BunnySkull

    BunnySkull Silver Meritorious Patron

    I guess with Rinder and Rathbun in San Antonio - it means a big legal showdown is coming to the courts in Texas in the near future. What's interesting is rather than critics or human rights crusaders getting attacked in court by the cult - it's actually going to be scientologist vs. scientologist.

    A pretty formidable array of Ex-SO bigwigs is starting to form, and I hope more are coming. They come from a broad range of backgrounds in the SO. With just M&M+Deb you have a OSA chief, a chief ethics thug and Flag capt. If you take into account all the others that have left and might be willing to jump in the fray - Tom DeVotch, Amy Scobee, the INT escapees, etc.. and probably others we don't know about..it could be very interesting. Considering their different work areas in the cult they know a pretty big range of dirty tricks, internal tactics, policies and insider info and dirt to use as tools against the cult and what it may try against them.

    The cult has never had to face anything quite like this - a united team of former high level execs. The fact that many of them don't think of themselves as "exes" but instead think they are the real scientologists only makes this more interesting.

    I'm glad Debbie is ready for the fight - she is no doubt a formidable opponent. Maybe DM finally fucked with the wrong woman.

    As for this particular case against Debbie from the cult -- I have a feeling things may just get so involved in the doctrinal aspects of Scientology -- the courts will throw the cult's suit out and say we don't settle religious disputes.
     
  5. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Was just checking up on my wording . . . I tend to speak British Law . . . and this is what I found in wikipedia.
    :biggrin::biggrin:
    OK, Village Voice you know where Debbie's attorney is . . . make sure he is aware of this :yes:

    There are also other charms on wiki such as . .

     
  6. Axiom142

    Axiom142 Gold Meritorious Patron

    I was rather hoping that something like this was going to happen. Debbie sounds as though she is up for a fight and I hope that she gets the backup she needs.

    Could it be that this was part of her plan all along - enrage Miscavige so that he is suckered into letting loose the shyster attack-dogs? I am so hoping that Debbie’s lawyer goes for the ‘invalid contract due to coercion’ ploy. This would be a fantastic opportunity to call some of those who have been physically abused by the Tiny Tyrant and have entered into public record their eye-witness accounts.

    Then, the case becomes all about a nasty little cult leader who beats up people for his own perverted gratification.

    It is looking more and more like the cult cannot win anything from this stupid action and stands to lose really big.

    Axiom142
     
  7. Rene Descartes

    Rene Descartes Gold Meritorious Patron

    From Ortega's piece.

    I asked him for a preview of what might come out in that hearing next week, and he said they would enter evidence for how Cook and her husband Wayne Baumgarten were compelled to sign such seemingly draconian non-disclosure agreements

    Wow, really?

    Whodathunk?

    Rd00
     
  8. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on


    I think Debbie's lawyer should check with Mark Baker, because he said that there is no case for coercion.

    In fact Mark was so certain of it I don't even know why the court system is needed when all they need to do is ask Mark.

    These judges and lawyers are so ridiculous to try to operate without Baker, they just don't get it.
     
  9. Sindy

    Sindy Crusader

    I really can't understand why a lawyer would even take on Debbie's case as it's so cut and dry. :melodramatic:
     
  10. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I don't understand how come a pair of highly-respected local lawyers takes on the case for the CofS. I mean, it's like being a Mafia lawyer. They can't be *that* hard-up for money.

    It can't be doing their reputation any good at all. As I imagine they will discover as they get more and more involved in the blood and guts. :)

    Paul
     
  11. Rene Descartes

    Rene Descartes Gold Meritorious Patron

    Yeah and perhaps you should start preparing your apology post to Mr Baker.

    I admire your integrity.

    Me? I would probably demand that he voluntarily sign an NDA before I apologize to him.

    Rd00
     
  12. Rene Descartes

    Rene Descartes Gold Meritorious Patron

    Paul,

    You're just in time.

    No, wait a sec.

    You are late. I just found out I have to head out on the road. I was going to ask you to put Mark and I into one of those sessions of yours but I can't stick around.

    Check with Mark to see if he will go into session without me tbeing here. Or maybe Gadfly can go in my place to reply what he thinks I would reply. If the session doesn't work well that way I am sure you have some excellent repair lists that can be used.

    If Baker F/Ns then consider that I F/N.

    If Gadly F/Ns in my place... well I would prefer a mutual F/N from Mark.

    But if Gadly is BIs and wants to continue then keep at it.

    Thanks for all your help.

    Rd00
     
  13. Infinite

    Infinite Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller

    ..

    So, how long before David Miscavige "resigns", the cults realises its been remiss, a public mea culpa is broadcast far and wide, the "bad apples" are expelled, the new boss rides in on a white horse, an amnesty is offered to all Scientologists, and the criminals all get away?
     
  14. Lulu Belle

    Lulu Belle Moonbat

    According to Jeffrey's website, he's a veteran of more than 75 trials since 1989, and served as the mayor of Bulverde, a San Antonio suburb, for a couple of years.

    But I asked him what his experience is in litigation with the Church of Scientology.

    "None. I've had a mild interest over the years. I've always been aware of Scientology, but that's the full extent of it. Coincidentally I read the Reitman book on vacation last summer. It was quite fascinating," he says, referring to Janet Reitman's history of the church, last year's Inside Scientology.



    "Coincidentally" he happened to read Inside Scientology while on vacation a year ago?

    [​IMG]

    Does anyone else besides me find that....really "coincidental"?
     
  15. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Paul, again is correct . . . what's new? :biggrin:

    If one reads the "Vexation Litigation" piece on wiki, here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

    Not only do we find the church cited as . . . what was that lovely label again? . . Notable vexatious litigants but the law provides, and the Courts have ruled those who are found to be frequent vexation litigants can be barred from filing cases/claims without the prior review and approval of a senior judge.

    It can get to the point where such a litigant is simply barred form the courts.

    This gets more and more delicious by the minute. Based on what I've read, not only is the agreement far too broad and restrictive to be valid, let alone enforceable, but I'd say there are no true grounds for a claim that it has been broken by that email.

    I do hope Debbie is pissed enough to counter sue. :yes:

    R
     
  16. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    This is going to be a really interesting case.

    Isn't this the first time the church has taken someone to court who considers themselves an on- source Scientologist?

    Isn't this the first time they are putting Scientology policy on trial?

    Have they ever sued a Scientologist in good standing before?

    No matter what the outcome, won't it further prove how insane Scientology really is?

    By taking Debbie to court isn't the church violating it's own SP doctrine by reporting itself to the media?
     
  17. Axiom142

    Axiom142 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Dear Mr HH, I must protest!

    You are doing Mr Baker a grave disservice. Mark and I (as well as several others here) are actually legal experts.

    The most expert kind there is, in fact.


    Armchair lawyers.


    [​IMG]


    Ax
     
  18. namaste

    namaste Silver Meritorious Patron

  19. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor