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.



The smoking Gun

Discussion in 'Important documents' started by WildKat, Feb 11, 2012.

  1. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    I don't mean to offend, however, you are looking at her situation from your viewpoint - she, hers. I am certain she feels she is doing the right thing, just as you are convinced you know better what she should do.

    The way I see it is that she is using Standard Hubbard style Ethics and telling him to back the Fuck off on terms he can understand. She, being a true believer, is still willing to lie and cover up to protect the faith. That e-mail was not for our eyes, but that cat is now out of the bag. She would have to be willing and to read a lot of "entheta" before she could come to the realization she, following Ron's tech, is in error. Ain't gonna happen any time soon. For Christ's sake, she is a highly classed auditor - she has bought into the tech in a big way. None of them are willing, except in a court of law in their own defense, with guarantees of immunity, to reveal what they know. They are not martyrs. Or stupid.

    They believe what they believe, just like you or I do. If you feel strongly about her position, I suggest you email her and let her know. I am happy she wasn't ground into the dirt by that douche bag, another statistic. I'm happy that she has woken up some true believers that the Mayor of Over the Rainbow ain't applying Hub's tech the way it should be, and cutting the dono money line will only cause his position to be more un-tenable. In the long run, it is movement in the right direction, and for that we should be happy. So what if she hasn't told all? At least she has a card or two up her sleeve still to play. All we can hope is that he is pissed off enough and continues to fuck with her, and like a planet falling into a black hole, sparks will fly.

    Mimsey
     
  2. Sindy

    Sindy Crusader

    No, you're just too Straight Up and Wenlockable. :biggrin:

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Yeah! Just WHERE EXACTLY IS SHELLY MISCAVIGE, ANYWAY? :nervous:

    And how many other Sea Org members have "disappeared" over time?
     
  4. I know several people who will sing like canaries! :thumbsup: :happydance:
     
  5. Osiris

    Osiris Patron with Honors

    Perhaps.....Scientology want to get Debbie cook in Court, & have her Swear under oath that She knows of no wrong doing by the church, (meaning she can never say anything "other wise" again),

    I smell a big settlement may be offered by the church to get such an outcome

    Debbie Cook is playing the Goodie Two Shoes Scientologist, while looking every bit like a blackmailer at this stage to me
     
  6. ChurchOfCylontology

    ChurchOfCylontology Patron with Honors

    I speak as someone who is a practicing attorney with a law degree. I am not a criminal attorney but I can tell you that her written words may put her in some trouble. In other words, I am not talking out of my ass.

    Hubbard ethics don't count in the wog world, a world in which she now has to exist.
     
  7. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    I'll be the first person to tell you (or anyone) that I am far from perfect, and don't know everything, despite how opinionated I may come across. While I can see your point of view, and it does come across as a threat, and they (DM's lawyers) likely planned to use the blackmail aspect of it, perhaps you can explain this point of law to me. If you threaten to expose the illegal acts of another, if they don't cease slandering and libeling you, destroying your business etc., how is that construed as an illegal act? You haven't asked for any renumeration (bribe), just that they go away, and leave you alone.

    Mimsey
     
  8. ChurchOfCylontology

    ChurchOfCylontology Patron with Honors

    I am also very opinionated but I can appreciate the complexity of Debbie's situation however (mostly) the law doesn't allow her to commit crimes in the name of protecting herself. Although Debbie's ethical quagmire is complicated, two wrongs don't make a right. The Cult's criminal culpability doesn't give Debbie any free reign to commit crimes in the name of her own freedom. Law enforcement and/or proper legal protection are her only options.

    Put it this way - in most states it is illegal to set up a trap inside your own house to catch an intruder, even if you've had multiple break-ins. If you set up a crossbow to be set off in your house when someone breaks in, and someone gets hurt then you will be arrested. You are protecting your own house but it is illegal to set the trap. The intruder is breaking the law but so are you. In most cases, you have to be present and in imminent danger to use force against someone who has malicious intent.

    Debbie made an illegal threat and she did it in writing. She set up a crossbow in her own house to protect herself and she may get caught. She's be better served if she (along with her lawyer) went to the FBI voluntarily and spilled her guts.
     
  9. ChurchOfCylontology

    ChurchOfCylontology Patron with Honors

    Oh, and one more thing, what Debbie proposed in her letter had little to do with the Cult slandering or libeling her or her business. She tried to coerce/blackmail the Cult to leave her alone in return for hiding evidence and obstructing justice. There may be several actionable crimes here. The libel, slander, etc, are civil issues that are not related to Debbie's crimes unless they fall into harassment categories but even then, she was VERY clear in trying to blackmail in return for silence. She even used 'quid pro quo' in her letter. Not good.
     
  10. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    So let me understand, if she threatens to expose them, it is illegal, but if she does expose them, it is not? What a funny world we live in.

    Mimsey
     
  11. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    That bothered me too. I see your point better. But the slander and libel is on their part, perhaps I didn't make that clear. It is part of their smear campaign. They have run that sort of black PR on me and for the life of me, I can't see how I can stop them from persisting in doing it.

    Mimsey
     
  12. ChurchOfCylontology

    ChurchOfCylontology Patron with Honors

    She threatened to expose them IN RETURN for a benefit. That is called blackmail.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackmail

    If one witnesses or is a party to a crime, they have criminal culpability for the crime if they do not report it. Her duty is to report what she knows, not use it as a tool to get what she wants.
     
  13. ChurchOfCylontology

    ChurchOfCylontology Patron with Honors

    Smear campaigns, libel, and other dirty tricks the Cult does against Debbie are torts or financial harms, not criminal ones. What she wrote in that letter was a potential crime. Civil actions are different than criminal ones. She may have grounds for all sorts of civil law suits depending on her financial harm, but as we know the Cult will only use her law suits as methods to financially drain her.
     
  14. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    But she is not demanding money, but a cessation of illegal activity towards her. Perhaps there is a further legal definition, but this is what your reference had to say.

    Mimsey
     
  15. ChurchOfCylontology

    ChurchOfCylontology Patron with Honors

    It is still using knowledge as leverage to prevent future 'harm'. It doesn't directly involve money or property in this case (that we know of) but it can be argued that she would go public and that would cause financial harm to the cult.
     
  16. Man de la Mancha

    Man de la Mancha Patron with Honors

    In what country!? Just kidding ChurchO'Cy, I appreciate your knowledgeable posts. I believe that only certain occupations (social workers, doctors etc) are required to report crimes, but it might be different in some states. As I recall, in the final Seinfeld episode, the entire crew had to go to jail for failing to report a robbery they witnessed in a neighboring state, but then again, Larry David is not a lawyer!
     
  17. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    I agree this is true, it would harm them, but where is the financial benefit to her? The restoration of her clients if they restore her to good standing? I don't see how an argument based on harm to them is valid, unless there is some commensurate quantitative benefit to her, beyond them ceasing their criminal actions toward her.

    Now what I think is a problem is the same thing Jan Eastgate faces, Debbie (as are M & M et al), knowing of a crime and not reporting it, is obstructing justice and is vulnerable on that point.

    Mimsey
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2012
  18. ChurchOfCylontology

    ChurchOfCylontology Patron with Honors

    LOL....God help us if Larry David were a lawyer. I've watched enough 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' to not want to live in the same state as that guy.

    If you witness a crime and do nothing, you have some level of criminal culpability which really is a meaningless word because it means that you have a degree of responsibility, NOT that you can be found guilty of a crime. Being criminally culpable means that you have a degree of responsibility for a crime. Your culpability can vary depending on your degree of responsibility.

    So if I were to see someone jaywalking and I don't report it, yes I have a degree of responsibility but that crime is just an infraction and no one gives a shit. If I witness a murder and I don't report it, I have a degree of responsibility and it is a big crime and a lot of people give a shit.

    I am still culpable but will I get in trouble for not reporting a jaywalking? No. Do I have a duty? I witnessed an infraction so the duty probably doesn't exist. Duty and culpability are two completely separate concepts. What Debbie alludes to in both her letter and in her public statements (and testimony) seem to be big crimes and a LOT of people give a shit so she has a duty to report what she knows.

    There are a lot of people still stuck in the hole and she has a duty to report what she knows about that. Whether law enforcement does anything with it is not her concern. Her concern is to get her shit straight and report what she knows. If she witnessed a crime (let's say a negligent homicide) and doesn't report it then her degree of responsibility increases dramatically.

    This is why I would get so pissed off at the battle scarred Scientologists that would go into hiding once they blew and wait for years before they say anything. By the time the mind-fog wears off, many statutes of limitation passed. It is one thing that keeps Miscavige where he is and what keeps the crime syndicate operating.
     
  19. ChurchOfCylontology

    ChurchOfCylontology Patron with Honors

    There doesn't always have to be a financial benefit to the one making the threat. Someone can blackmail to get specific behaviors from someone else. For example, a police officer can threaten to give a ticket to an attractive female if she doesn't give him sexual favors. There's no financial gain there, but it is illegal just the same (there's probably a better analogy out there but I think you get the point). She threatened to use knowledge as a tool to threaten future harm to the cult. Obstructing justice is another crime all together. That's why I said that there may be multiple actionable crimes in her letter.
     
  20. Mimsey Borogrove

    Mimsey Borogrove Crusader

    What I like about this board is the difference of opinions and the willingness of the members to get one to look at another view point. While lying in bed talking with my wife about the exchange I had with C of C, I began to think of the import of Debbie's 2nd email. While I still think it is good she slipped out of his noose, her underlying message is really foul.

    She wants quid pro quo - she wants to be left alone or she will cease being involved in the cover-up? What a contrast to her statement after the end of her mini trial - she wants financial transparency by the church. Isn't she essentially saying she is on a par with Dear Leaders own out ethics? That she feels the cover up is somehow beneficial to the well being of the Church?

    I was wondering how it came to be, that I thought so well of her? Why did I phoo phoo comments about how she was no saint on post, being after the all mighty dollar to the detriment of her public. I realized I had bought into the slick PR campaign that created the image of a caring, wonderful exec at the reigns of the "Friendliest place on earth" It is the same PR program that I believed about Dear Leader. Amazing.

    Mimsey