Co$ sues Debbie Cook in Texas

[Jquepublic]

The only considerations that matter will be those of the court. Mine certainly don't. Moreover, she was an adult when she signed the NDA.


Mark A. Baker

Yes, she was. Prior to that she was imprisioned in the Hole for 45 days and abused in horrific ways by a sociopath.

It's relevant. The right attorney will make good and fucking sure of it.

edit: And I'm not being hostile! I just have potty mouth.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

The biggest hypocrisy is that it's a High Crime for one Scientologist to sue another Scientologist. Debbie Cook is a Scientologist, any scholar would call her one. Yet official Scientology violates its own rules and sues her!

CHUCK!

Undoubtedly on the orders of David Miscavige. Time for a Comm Ev for him, all you on the fence lurkers!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Yes, she was. Prior to that she was imprisioned in the Hole for 45 days and abused in horrific ways by a sociopath.

It's relevant. The right attorney will make good and fucking sure of it.

edit: And I'm not being hostile! I just have potty mouth.

Her lawyer has my good wishes. Barring substantive evidence of the abuse of his client the guy has his work cut out for him.

And no worries. I don't take your potty mouth personally, just as my remarks have not been personal.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Sindy]

That's an interesting question. I thought of that too.

Funnily enough, when Satacy and Vaughn Young left the SO I was told by Stacy before she left they were going on a "medical leave".

Maybe Medical Leave = Agreed Upon Shore Story

Having her out of the SO after all those years was a PR flap, then too.

 

[Panda Termint]

General Commentary (addressed to no-one in particular);

I've followed the discussion and decided that ESMB seems to operate under its own Laws Of Commotion, one such being;

"In the absence of actual data, idle speculation will more than suffice."

We'll have some actual, real-world data in a very short time, I can wait.

 

[Sindy]

General Commentary (addressed to no-one in particular);

I've followed the discussion and decided that ESMB seems to operate under its own Laws Of Commotion, one such being;

"In the absence of actual data, idle speculation will more than suffice."

We'll have some actual, real-world data in a very short time, I can wait.

I tend to think of it more this way:

"A sneaky, cunning, secretive, black ops, "never what it appears", mafia-like, criminal spy organization is only found out by constant inspection, investigation and intelligent speculation."

Even if they are continuous guesses, it keeps the critical thinking going and maybe it misses their withholds now and again.

When you've had your thoughts controlled and mind turned off for so long it's only natural to second guess every god damn thing that they do and no conspiracy theory is really too over the top for this creepy "religion".

In addition, so many times we've been given "actual data", it ends up being bullshit too. Such is the challenge working with total liars and layers, and layers of complete BS. Scientologists, even when they are out, still believe in a fantasy world and their "actual data" is suspect.

 

[Panda Termint]

Of course, that's what causes the Commotion!

 

[freethinker]

It's more like Human Nature.

Here is some actual data.

General Commentary (addressed to no-one in particular);

I've followed the discussion and decided that ESMB seems to operate under its own Laws Of Commotion, one such being;

"In the absence of actual data, idle speculation will more than suffice."

We'll have some actual, real-world data in a very short time, I can wait.

 

[Panda Termint]

It's more like Human Nature.

Here is some actual data.

Yes, you're right, it is Human Nature and we're, for the most part, simply being Human.

I have read the actual data (thanks for linking it again) when it was first published. There has also been quite a bit of actual data posted in response but I think, if you've read the thread, you may already understand why I view much it as speculation.

We'll know more actual data soon enough.

 

[degraded being]

Many of the people who leave of left never recieved any money, yet are/were pressured into signing the NDA (or they won't let them through the "routing form").

They wouldn't let my daughter "leave" until she signed. It is "part of the process", a "process" that they make VERY difficult for any person who wants to "leave". This is common and "standard".

No, there is no "physical duress", but there is very real and intense "emotional and mental duress". It seems that a decent attorney could fairly easily make that case, IF the defendents were willing to really explain HOW and WHY the Church exerts such intense pressure on any member through the acceptance of the Scientology paradigm. I am sure that I myself could help an attorney present an amazing case that would show HOW and WHY the person wanting to leave is truly undergoing very real and intense pressure, force and duress, and that within the framework of what they have been indoctrinated into accepting and believing, they truly have "no choice" but to sign the NDA.

I suppose if courts ONLY count duress as "physical force", then maybe not, but if they can accept duress as "mental and emotional", then YES, very much so, to me, it could be EASILY proven that any person leaving is coerced into the signing the NDA, and it is NOT "voluntary". If they refuse to sign or get a lawyer, they will probably get "declared as a suppressive person". THAT is a VERY REAL concern and fear to the still over-indoctrinated and true-believing Scientologist who is routing out of some Scientology organization.

If this was pushed to a jury trail, I can't really imagine how a group of objective people wouldn't clearly see that. Of course, the C of S will do EVERYTHING to not allow a jury trial. And more basically, true believers like Debbie are probably NOT willing to expose the Scientology manipulation and control that routinely occurs based on exact LRH policies and traditional Scientology organization behavior.

I'm not a lawyer but I think the "voluntary" signing of documents at the time of leaving, in the case of Scientology comes under HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

 

[degraded being]

Devil in the datails?

A person has threats made about their spiritual future, acceptance within the "religious group" in the future made, in order to get them to sign documents
= not illegal. No legal case.

A person is threatened by the presence of security guards, too many high up officials, video camera, = coercion, a belief that they will be physically prevented from leaving.?

After the "religious" part is taken out, it seems from what people say, that some of them are given heavy coercion, and psychological pressure, which, as far as I know is not legally acceptable. The argument that people can just leave is valid, but the party who wants the documents signed is not allowed to create a threatening situation which makes them feel threatened if they do not. This is true isn't it?


http://www.answers.com/topic/coercion


Columbia Encyclopedia:
coercion

Top
coercion, in law, the unlawful act of compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free will, particularly by use or threat of physical or moral force. In many states of the United States, statutes declare a person guilty of a misdemeanor if he, by violence or injury to another's person, family, or property, or by depriving him of his clothing or any tool or implement, or by intimidating him with threat of force, compels that other to perform some act that the other is not legally bound to perform. Coercion may involve other crimes, such as assault. In the law of contracts, the use of unfair persuasion to procure an agreement is known as duress; such a contract is void unless later ratified. At common law, one who commits a crime under coercion may be excused if he can show that the danger of death or great bodily harm was present and imminent. However, coercion is not a defense for the murder or attempted murder of an innocent third party.

http://www.answers.com/topic/coercion

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/coercion#ixzz1lHYml4wz

 

[Rene Descartes]

I tend to think of it more this way:

"A sneaky, cunning, secretive, black ops, "never what it appears", mafia-like, criminal spy organization is only found out by constant inspection, investigation and intelligent speculation."

Even if they are continuous guesses, it keeps the critical thinking going and maybe it misses their withholds now and again.

When you've had your thoughts controlled and mind turned off for so long it's only natural to second guess every god damn thing that they do and no conspiracy theory is really too over the top for this creepy "religion".

In addition, so many times we've been given "actual data", it ends up being bullshit too. Such is the challenge working with total liars and layers, and layers of complete BS. Scientologists, even when they are out, still believe in a fantasy world and their "actual data" is suspect.

And not only that...

A Think Tank like this one is a lot more fun than a Think Tank that keeps quoting L Ron Hubbard tech, policy and lectures.

Rd00

 

[degraded being]

Maybe Medical Leave = Agreed Upon Shore Story

Having her out of the SO after all those years was a PR flap, then too.

She said in her email that the medical problems she routed out for were "ongoing".

That makes it sound like she actually does have some med probs.
However, it could still be a shore story. I'm very curious about the medical problems. Actually the way I read it in the email, made it sound like one of the barbs in one of the arrows aimed at DM. His fault. Because she attrribtued the med problems to out teck. out lists, re-doing stuff, the DM way instead of the LRH way.
And the fact that it is still ongoing.....well it says that DMs out tech fucked her up for years. I read it quickly, but that's what I think it says. It puts a personal angle on it which I can see could be a big part of her motivation in her righteous battle.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

All in a sudden over the last couple of days the Co$ has started running ads on major TC channels so my source in LA tells me.

Claims they do do not look like the high school project stuff of previous ads but look pretty slick and professional - and claim 4.2 million new adherents a year,

Could this be that " damage that DM, that poor little man, is seeking from Debbie ?

They ain't got 4.2 million TOTAL worldwide.

 

[chuckbeatty]

I wonder if Debbie's Facebook history might become evidence, should she offer it up.

Because if Debbie was violating her agreement in 2011, way before her "email", by simply conversing with other Scientologists on Facebook, if her months of Facebook communication, which is public, and OSA might have been reading, if NONE of her months of Facebook communication was deemed a breach of the agreement, BUT, THEN just her "email" of Dec 31, 2011 is considered a breech, then I wonder if that inconsistency in WHEN it is that Scientology decides to pounce on her for her "breech" of the agreement, but maybe that's irrelavent, and maybe there are dozens of earlier breeches in amongst her Facebook communications.

I guess she was simply expected NOT to discuss Scientology at all, the rest of her life.

I remember I asked Elliot, as I signed my ridiculous agreement, I asked him, "Does this mean I can't even talk to my brother about my life in Scientology?"

I had a genuine concern.

I mean it is totally unrealistic to expect a person NEVER to communicate to anyone about one's life's history, where the mundane incidents, of reminiscing about some Sea Org incident in my life, it is just unrealistic to expect a person to NEVER in the rest of their life, not slip and discuss some incident of their Scientology Sea Org career! All could be technically a breech.

I recall Gerry Armstrong brought up this unrealistic expectation of his agreement.

These agreements deny human nature to discuss a person's life with another human being.

Are we technically not allowed to even discuss our lives?

It's absurd.

 

[chuckbeatty]

I just realized another absurdity of these agreements.

IF I had paid my freeloader debt, if I did "lower conditions" and then began to get auditing, and IF I was asked in session, let's say in an HCO Confessional, which is "not auditing you" and thus technically public, and IF I then ran an incident that went earlier similar into my Sea Org career, I would technically be violating my agreement that I signed with Elliot Abelson.

If Debbie, didn't send out that Dec 31, 2011 email, but let's say she paid off her freeloader debt, and got back onlines at AOLA and got some HCO Confessionals, and if she ran some overt chains that brought up Sea Org incidents, she technically would be in violation of her agreement, even THOUGH she is clearly cooperating in full and being a "good girl" and not violating any regular SCientology rules. But by talking about her Sea Org career, even to an auditor, in an HCO Confessional, she'd be in violation of her agreement.

What is the difference?

HOW in the heck can ANY ex Sea Org member ever NOT violate their agreements, techincally, since if all goes well, and all ex Sea Org members get back "on lines" and continue getting auditing, at some point they will run chains of transgressions or incidents in some form or another, where they will be sitting doing the right thing as a Scientologist parishioner, but they will technically be in violation with their non disclosure agreements.

What is the difference?

I think there must be some fact about WHEN Scientology chooses to deem a breech a breech.

Because technically, it seems that innocent breeches are understood NOT to be breeches and Scientology has no intent to hassle an ex Sea Org member about a innocent and somehow judged harmless breech.

Somehow the 'email' was judged harmful.

I think that is what the Scientology case has to be around.

I guess I answered my own question.

No wait, but that would mean that a breech has to be harmful, and that means there has to be some method of judging what is harmful, and proving harm! Wouldn't it?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I wonder if Debbie's Facebook history might become evidence, should she offer it up.

Because if Debbie was violating her agreement in 2011, way before her "email", by simply conversing with other Scientologists on Facebook, if her months of Facebook communication, which is public, and OSA might have been reading, if NONE of her months of Facebook communication was deemed a breach of the agreement, BUT, THEN just her "email" of Dec 31, 2011 is considered a breech, then I wonder if that inconsistency in WHEN it is that Scientology decides to pounce on her for her "breech" of the agreement, but maybe that's irrelavent, and maybe there are dozens of earlier breeches in amongst her Facebook communications.

I guess she was simply expected NOT to discuss Scientology at all, the rest of her life.

I remember I asked Elliot, as I signed my ridiculous agreement, I asked him, "Does this mean I can't even talk to my brother about my life in Scientology?"

I had a genuine concern.

I mean it is totally unrealistic to expect a person NEVER to communicate to anyone about one's life's history, where the mundane incidents, of reminiscing about some Sea Org incident in my life, it is just unrealistic to expect a person to NEVER in the rest of their life, not slip and discuss some incident of their Scientology Sea Org career! All could be technically a breech.

I recall Gerry Armstrong brought up this unrealistic expectation of his agreement.

These agreements deny human nature to discuss a person's life with another human being.

Are we technically not allowed to even discuss our lives?

It's absurd.

Your post brings out a very poignant message, thank you!

After a few moments consideration, I honestly think I have the answer to that question--from Scientology's perspective.

Some may think I am joking, but I'm not.

"Are we technically not allowed to even discuss our lives?"

ANSWER: It's not "our" lives or "your lives". Scientology believes it owns your life. At least until you have performed according to its standards. They will return your life back to you when you have proven you are totally responsible, ethical and OT.

So, in other words, never.

Think of Scientology like a long-duration INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN where you get notes from the CS asking you what to expect if they let you "out".

You can get "in" Scientology.

But nobody is let "out" ever.

You want "out" you gotta break out.

And even if you make it "out", they're coming after you to capture you and bring you back.

Scientologists, they own the planet and everyone on it. At least they think they do.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I just realized another absurdity of these agreements.

IF I had paid my freeloader debt, if I did "lower conditions" and then began to get auditing, and IF I was asked in session, let's say in an HCO Confessional, which is "not auditing you" and thus technically public, and IF I then ran an incident that went earlier similar into my Sea Org career, I would technically be violating my agreement that I signed with Elliot Abelson.

If Debbie, didn't send out that Dec 31, 2011 email, but let's say she paid off her freeloader debt, and got back onlines at AOLA and got some HCO Confessionals, and if she ran some overt chains that brought up Sea Org incidents, she technically would be in violation of her agreement, even THOUGH she is clearly cooperating in full and being a "good girl" and not violating any regular SCientology rules. But by talking about her Sea Org career, even to an auditor, in an HCO Confessional, she'd be in violation of her agreement.

What is the difference?

HOW in the heck can ANY ex Sea Org member ever NOT violate their agreements, techincally, since if all goes well, and all ex Sea Org members get back "on lines" and continue getting auditing, at some point they will run chains of transgressions or incidents in some form or another, where they will be sitting doing the right thing as a Scientologist parishioner, but they will technically be in violation with their non disclosure agreements.

What is the difference?

I think there must be some fact about WHEN Scientology chooses to deem a breech a breech.

ANSWER: The difference is that when you are PAYING MONEY to or REGGING MONEY for Scientology you can talk about anything. When you are COSTING MONEY to Scientology you can't talk about anything. It's about money. Simple.

 

[chuckbeatty]

Your post brings out a very poignant message, thank you!

After a few moments consideration, I honestly think I have the answer to that question--from Scientology's perspective.

Some may think I am joking, but I'm not.

"Are we technically not allowed to even discuss our lives?"

ANSWER: It's not "our" lives or "your lives". Scientology believes it owns your life. At least until you have performed according to its standards. They will return your life back to you when you have proven you are totally responsible, ethical and OT.

So, in other words, never.

Think of Scientology like a long-duration INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN where you get notes from the CS asking you what to expect if they let you "out".

You can get "in" Scientology.

But nobody is let "out" ever.

You want "out" you gotta break out.

And even if you make it "out", they're coming after you to capture you and bring you back.

Scientologists, they own the planet and everyone on it. At least they think they do.

Put yourself in Debbie's lawyer's shoes, and think if there is any fruitful angle here.

 

[chuckbeatty]

ANSWER: The difference is that when you are PAYING MONEY to or REGGING MONEY for Scientology you can talk about anything. When you are COSTING MONEY to Scientology you can't talk about anything. It's about money. Simple.

My point is there must be some way Scientology determines a breech, some threshold because taken to extremes, every utterance even to another Scientologist about mundane matters of one's Sea Org career are technically a breech.

The lawyer defending Debbie will likely find that Debbie has technically violated her agreement hundreds of times, in the 4 years since she's signed it.

Debbie's lawyer will have to ask Scientology why it is, that Scientology did NOT charge her with a breech in these other instances.

That I think, is the inevitable way that Debbie's lawyer will go, which is on the point of WHY is Scientology saying what part of what Debbie said in the email, what exact part of what she said.

Technically saying anything critical, like Mick said, is just technically as bad as her saying ANYTHING that violated the agreement literally, and her saying ANYTHING even mundane and even innocent reminiscences would technically be a violation.

I saw some sharp minds here think of angles that might assist the lawyer.