Please, read and share,but do not reply here

[exccc]

I admit to being ignorant of legal issues, especially concerning gagging orders. Where a law is being breached surely it is legal to witness that to a the police, lawyers, judge and jury? That being the case the press would be free to print what was witnessed. But if one was naughty and and went to a journalist what could the church do? Lets say they were dumb enough to take someone to court for exposing their criminal behaviour, if the person was found guilty and had no money how could they get paid? they would have nothing to gain but bad PR. It would be like a murderer suing his mother for going to police when she dug up a body in the garden.

You're right, the OP is guilty of something and an issue could have been made of it. But the best way to do that would have been to call the police immediately and try to have her arrested. But that would have given her data credibility and left her free to defend herself.

OSA wanted to avoid that. That's why they kept her locked in a hotel room and made her sign and admit stuff. FUD is OSA's favorite tactic.

Anyway, most of these non-disclosure agreements staff are forced to sign are unenforceable That's why you rarely hear of anyone being taken to court on that alone. Why would they need to DA someone if they could simply sue them out of existence? Even when they do take critics to court, the non-disclosure agreements are rarely at the heart of it.

Scn forces people to sign such meaningless contracts all the time. Have you ever heard of a FL bill being sued over? They would if they could.

If a staff or public does an OT level, that data could have been considered proprietary and if the person then published it, that might have been enforceable at one time. Not really any longer, though, as any lawyer could easily show the information has been out for a long time already and the person didn't really do any damage. Plus, the fact of suing would confirm the data in the first place, something else they don't want to do.

With all these high-level defections, a coherent picture is starting to emerge in the public's mind. All these guys gave their whole lives to Scn, only to be threatened, harassed and held against their will and degraded.

The line that DM is the greatest exec who ever walked the planet is starting to look rather ridiculous to even a cursory observer.

OSA, Moxen and co. are smart enough to know this, though they'd never admit it. The last thing they need to do is manufacture more trouble for themselves by taking the OP to court -- that is if they are smart. True, they've screwed up this kind of thing before, but I think in this case, the decision has already been made.

If I were the OP, I'd count my blessings and disappear into the woodwork for a while, but she doesn't seem to be thinking that way. Even if they have grudgingly decided to let this one go, who wants to stay on their radar? True, that gives them a bit of a win, and no one wants to do that, but when you are on shaky ground already... Despite all I said above, OSA can be a nightmare. One needs to be in a position of strength to withstand an assault. I don't have the impression the OP is in that position...

Just my 2 cents.

 

[TG1]

(snip)

Debbie Cook probably broke the law when she used a Church address list to send out her email. OSA tried to nail her to the wall with that and out came devastating testimony of her being held against her will and much more.

(snip)

To keep this real ... to my knowledge, Debbie Cook did not use a Church address list in sending our her (apparently) quite effective email. When she sent out her famous email, she at that time had thousands of Facebook friends. And at that point, she was the beloved ex-Flag CEO, whom everybody in the church seemed to want to be in touch with.

Debbie's reach into the church was that it went viral because it was forwarded by so many other churchies to THEIR email lists.

Just want to correct this one point.

Thanks,

TG1

 

[exccc]

To keep this real ... to my knowledge, Debbie Cook did not use a Church address list in sending our her (apparently) quite effective email. When she sent out her famous email, she at that time had thousands of Facebook friends. And at that point, she was the beloved ex-Flag CEO, whom everybody in the church seemed to want to be in touch with.

Debbie's reach into the church was that it went viral because it was forwarded by so many other churchies to THEIR email lists.

Just want to correct this one point.

Thanks,

TG1

I have no problem believing that at all. I only mentioned it because I was under the impression that was one of the things alleged. If that's wrong, thanks for pointing it out.

Debbie Cook was a heavy hitter and worth OSA's time and expense, it was believed. The OP, not so much.

 

[thefiredragon]

Interesting. I signed similar document when I joined the Sea org in 97, but it was worded differently and I don't remeber anything about giving up my first amendment.
And since OSA said they won't declare my an SP again, because my old declaration from 2011 is still valid, I wonder if this document is unenforcible, because for almost 6 month I was hanging out with scns on the good stnding ( It started in Tampa ideal org) and then in Sea org and now they are not sure what to do.I even took practice e-meter check in Tampa that showed that I never thought bad of scientology and did not come to investigate it. They will probably now sec checking everybody who ever talked to me.. but if an SP signed this doc already being declared an SP, how does this work..
:confused2:

 

[AnonyMary]

Interesting. I signed similar document when I joined the Sea org in 97, but it was worded differently and I don't remeber anything about giving up my first amendment.
And since OSA said they won't declare my an SP again, because my old declaration from 2011 is still valid, I wonder if this document is unenforcible, because for almost 6 month I was hanging out with scns on the good stnding ( It started in Tampa ideal org) and then in Sea org and now they are not sure what to do.I even took practice e-meter check in Tampa that showed that I never thought bad of scientology and did not come to investigate it. They will probably now sec checking everybody who ever talked to me.. but if an SP signed this doc already being declared an SP, how does this work..
:confused2:

What document are you writing about?

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Interesting. I signed similar document when I joined the Sea org in 97, but it was worded differently and I don't remeber anything about giving up my first amendment.
And since OSA said they won't declare my an SP again, because my old declaration from 2011 is still valid, I wonder if this document is unenforcible, because for almost 6 month I was hanging out with scns on the good stnding ( It started in Tampa ideal org) and then in Sea org and now they are not sure what to do.I even took practice e-meter check in Tampa that showed that I never thought bad of scientology and did not come to investigate it. They will probably now sec checking everybody who ever talked to me.. but if an SP signed this doc already being declared an SP, how does this work..
:confused2:

If this full story came out to the general public (including any current cult members) it would make OSA, scientology, all auditors, their tek and e-meter's look like the complete and utter joke that they are ... you are as in control of this situation as anybody else is ... and the cofs must be terrified that you'll take it to the media.

Cult members have to believe in the workability and validity of the e-meter ... it's at the very heart of the cofs enterprise (everything else is just padding) and you have (apparently) just trashed and discredited it completely.

The cofs will not want it's cult members to hear about this ... ever.

 

[Smurf]

I would seriously LOVE to get a legal analysis of this agreement an SO member makes to waive his/her legal rights.

It's standard text in a Settlement Agreement. Here's an example of a settlement agreement (page 2) where the signer waives all U.S. constitutional rights & Nevada constitution rights "to settle & resolve matter of the formal complaint."

In Yuliya's case, she agreed to the waiver of rights to resolve her situation & avoid being arrested.

http://medboard.nv.gov/Public Filings/2013/Parks Settlement Agreement 6-7-2013.pdf

 

[120 Degrees]

Interesting. I signed similar document when I joined the Sea org in 97, but it was worded differently and I don't remeber anything about giving up my first amendment.
And since OSA said they won't declare my an SP again, because my old declaration from 2011 is still valid, I wonder if this document is unenforcible, because for almost 6 month I was hanging out with scns on the good stnding ( It started in Tampa ideal org) and then in Sea org and now they are not sure what to do.I even took practice e-meter check in Tampa that showed that I never thought bad of scientology and did not come to investigate it. They will probably now sec checking everybody who ever talked to me.. but if an SP signed this doc already being declared an SP, how does this work..
:confused2:

Free legal advice from an attorney to you, Firedragon: STOP POSTING HERE! Right NOW!

 

[Panda Termint]

Free legal advice from an attorney to you, Firedragon: STOP POSTING HERE! Right NOW!

Amen!!!

 

[TG1]

We offered the same advice. Repeatedly. Four million posts ago.

It didn't work.

 

[120 Degrees]

We offered the same advice. Repeatedly. Four million posts ago.

It didn't work.

I'm not surprised that you all have offered the same advice because it's not only legally sound but also common sense when dealing with Co$. I haven't read the entire enormous thread yet - but damn - this woman is a complete fool to have ignored you all. Some people are either beyond help or mentally incompetent and I'm afraid Yuliya is a person of either category or both.

 

[Mike Laws]

I am wondering if signing away ones constitutional rights isn´t contra bonos mores and therefore null and void.

If you visit with a lawyer in the US, you will be startled to discover that you can in fact legally sign away your constitutional rights, binding so, if it includes the components of a contract, things like sufficient/appropriate money for what is being asked or other significant consideration. It is somewhat complex law, needs good representation on both sides, but can be binding if properly done, and void if improperly done.

 

[Idle Morgue]

If you visit with a lawyer in the US, you will be startled to discover that you can in fact legally sign away your constitutional rights, binding so, if it includes the components of a contract, things like sufficient/appropriate money for what is being asked or other significant consideration. It is somewhat complex law, needs good representation on both sides, but can be binding if properly done, and void if improperly done.

We can see how the church of Scientology covertly slips in this "legally signing away your constitutional rights" in their contracts everyone initials and signs. "Trust" is high toned??? Yikes!

I have a question - when someone gives money to the Church of Scientology - is that money collected up front and then contracts are signed before the service is obtained or do they have you sign a contract and then collect the money. Does that matter according to the law?

 

[exccc]

If you visit with a lawyer in the US, you will be startled to discover that you can in fact legally sign away your constitutional rights, binding so, if it includes the components of a contract, things like sufficient/appropriate money for what is being asked or other significant consideration. It is somewhat complex law, needs good representation on both sides, but can be binding if properly done, and void if improperly done.

Well, yes, you are right. Any "non-disclosure" agreement of any kind abridges the right to free speech.

All I'm saying is it has to be specific and reasonable to be enforceable. If you sign a contract saying you know the risks of auditing and undertake this action with full awareness and disclosure and promise not to sue, that is probably enforceable -- within reason. If you have certain documents revealed to you and you again sign an agreement you won't disclose them, that can be enforceable within reason.

But you can't sign away your right to make friends with people. The thing that started this offshoot of the discussion was the agreement to never associate with ex-scientologists or aid critics in any way. I doubt any judge would enforce such a broad restriction.

Everything has to look good to the judge that's hearing the case. If you sign away your right to sue, as I'm sure Lisa McPherson did many times, that doesn't cover negligent homicide. (And just because they weren't found guilty in the CRIMINAL CASE [it was dropped], doesn't mean they wouldn't have been held liable civilly. OJ Simpson, anyone?) Therefore the church settled.

Contracts are simply formalized agreements between two parties. I can sign one saying me and all my progeny for the next three generations will be your indentured slaves for life. Think it would hold up in court?

 

[Purple Rain]

I'm not surprised that you all have offered the same advice because it's not only legally sound but also common sense when dealing with Co$. I haven't read the entire enormous thread yet - but damn - this woman is a complete fool to have ignored you all. Some people are either beyond help or mentally incompetent and I'm afraid Yuliya is a person of either category or both.

I am extremely concerned that this woman may be unstable to the point of being dangerous and should not only stop posting for her own benefit, but others should stop posting about her because the attention is potentially feeding ideation that may encourage her in perpetrating further illegal or criminal acts. This cannot possibly benefit either Yuliya or her children.

 

[La La Lou Lou]

Well, yes, you are right. Any "non-disclosure" agreement of any kind abridges the right to free speech.

All I'm saying is it has to be specific and reasonable to be enforceable. If you sign a contract saying you know the risks of auditing and undertake this action with full awareness and disclosure and promise not to sue, that is probably enforceable -- within reason. If you have certain documents revealed to you and you again sign an agreement you won't disclose them, that can be enforceable within reason.

But you can't sign away your right to make friends with people. The thing that started this offshoot of the discussion was the agreement to never associate with ex-scientologists or aid critics in any way. I doubt any judge would enforce such a broad restriction.

Everything has to look good to the judge that's hearing the case. If you sign away your right to sue, as I'm sure Lisa McPherson did many times, that doesn't cover negligent homicide. (And just because they were found not guilty in the CRIMINAL CASE, doesn't mean they wouldn't have been held liable civilly. OJ Simpson, anyone?) Therefore the church settled.

Contracts are simply formalized agreements between two parties. I can sign one saying me and all my progeny for the next three generations will be your indentured slaves for life. Think it would hold up in court?

My question would be...''or what''. So all SO members might have to sign that they will work non stop for a billion years, that they'll never complain about the food to the press, or that they'll never be unfriendly to an ethics officer, but could they, even if if they prove violations, actually get money out of an unemployed cleaner? If the naughty person has nothing how is the church going to gain from a legal case that will damage their PR anyway.

 

[exccc]

I am extremely concerned that this woman may be unstable to the point of being dangerous and should not only stop posting for her own benefit, but others should stop posting about her because the attention is potentially feeding ideation that may encourage her in perpetrating further illegal or criminal acts. This cannot possibly benefit either Yuliya or her children.

Correct in every way. Perhaps mod intervention? (close the thread!)

 

[exccc]

My question would be...''or what''. So all SO members might have to sign that they will work non stop for a billion years, that they'll never complain about the food to the press, or that they'll never be unfriendly to an ethics officer, but could they, even if if they prove violations, actually get money out of an unemployed cleaner? If the naughty person has nothing how is the church going to gain from a legal case that will damage their PR anyway.

Well, they are not trying to gain as much as harass, stop and destroy, but these are two separate issues.

 

[Good twin]

When I first saw this thread I figured it would be a dead thread in about 24 hours. The title implies that there is something to read in the opening post that is noteworthy and may be of interest to others, but the poster is not interested in further discussion about it.

You may think Yulia is batshit crazy or dumb as a rock. But she's a damn marketing genius. This thread is just unkillable. I have been watching it and resisting the temptation to post. Today I simply can't take it anymore.

When you think about it "do not reply here" could be the best way to get a conversation going on the internet, ever.

 

[exccc]

HAHA. Yes, you are exactly right. I also tried to refrain from this thread, but in the end I couldn't help it.

I think it's fine to discuss. I just worry for the OP.