Debbie Cook's Trial
- Thread starter SanDiegoMember
- Start date
NoName
A Girl Has No Name
Schwimmy & Smurf - the important key phrase in the Wollerscheim holding was "compelling state interest". That is where the courts will override religious beliefs.
It is not illegal to believe in polygamy, for example, but theUS Supreme Court found a compelling state interest in upholding the law that made it illegal. Likewise, this court found a compelling state interest in the Scno practices it listed.
An American court will never punish someone for believing in Fair Game or R2.45. But acting on the beliefs is a whole different ball of wax.
It is not illegal to believe in polygamy, for example, but theUS Supreme Court found a compelling state interest in upholding the law that made it illegal. Likewise, this court found a compelling state interest in the Scno practices it listed.
An American court will never punish someone for believing in Fair Game or R2.45. But acting on the beliefs is a whole different ball of wax.
Jquepublic
Silver Meritorious Patron
Has anyone come across the actual transcript of last week's hearing? I'm trying to collect all the legal docs in one place for future reference and it seems to me that should be online someplace! But I haven't found it.
SchwimmelPuckel
Genuine Meatball
Yup! - I'm aware of that.. And that was my point too. Scientology HAS actually Fair Gamed people. And as Hubbard advices, used the Law to harrass.. Numerous times.. So there's a history of it.. And as we all know, the current suit of Debbie Cook is also 'as per policy'. Namely to harrass her rather than win.
Hmm.. Maybe we could collect, in a thread, lots of examples of Fair Game and frivolous lawsuits, those that can be doxed, like the Wolersheim case.. And those told by people who will testify.
A resource for lawyers and judges..
Gadfly
Crusader
Yup! - I'm aware of that.. And that was my point too. Scientology HAS actually Fair Gamed people. And as Hubbard advices, used the Law to harrass.. Numerous times.. So there's a history of it.. And as we all know, the current suit of Debbie Cook is also 'as per policy'. Namely to harrass her rather than win.
Hmm.. Maybe we could collect, in a thread, lots of examples of Fair Game and frivolous lawsuits, those that can be doxed, like the Wolersheim case.. And those told by people who will testify.
A resource for lawyers and judges..
Yeah, I have also thought about how EASY it would be to put together an "information pack" that details and summarizes how and why Scientology uses these tactics. With lots of actual examples, quotes from various judges all over the world, the LRH policies that are being applied, and so forth. It would be so easy to show ANYBODY that these tactics are based on exact "ecclesaistical and religious dogma" of the Church of Scientology. It could be so easily shown that these instances are never and are NOT rare examples of "renegades misapplying the Scientology subject", but that, in fact, these nasty behaviors are EXACT CHURCH POLICY that are consistently and carefully applied, exactly as written, by Church staff all over the world.
And, send it to every congressman, judge and political person in the USA!
NoName
A Girl Has No Name
Given the ease of Photoshop and such, I don't think it would be convincing to necessarily get the HCOB's. But if someone could get it in the old mans handwriting or his voice on a recording....
The FBI can and should be able to analyze the style of prose and use of language accross the HCOB's to tie it to the old man, but I'm not sure if they can be arsed to do that.
The FBI can and should be able to analyze the style of prose and use of language accross the HCOB's to tie it to the old man, but I'm not sure if they can be arsed to do that.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
The HCOBs are bound into volumes, many sets of which exist. It's not like there is a roaring black market in Chinese knock-offs of Tech Volumes with fake issues inserted.
Paul
NoName
A Girl Has No Name
Paul, you and I both know this. I'm talking about how to overcome the inevitable denial by the Co$ if it is ever sent to judges, politicians, etc.
cayce-case-um
Patron with Honors
As to the concept that "judges are duty bound to consider only the facts before them ..." (my emphasis added):
That's not entirely accurate. Judges also have to take into account precedents in related or similar cases and sometimes a whole range of legal instructions -- and not just for so-called uniform sentencing guidelines.
Judges may provide juries with short or long lists of instructions. One example from California: If a person was intoxicated (by any drug), and commits a crime, that intoxication cannot be taken to absolve the person of responsibility for a criminal act unless perhaps the person was forced or made to unknowingly become intoxicated.
In other words, you can't get drunk, go shoot someone, and claim drunkenness as your defense.
But if someone drugged you and you did something wrong, you might have a defense if you can show that you were unknowingly or forcibly drugged.
In cases that involve First Amendment like the Cook case does, there are tons of things that judges have to consider besides the bare facts.
Scientology's description of truth = exact time, place, form, event, the reality is that truth is more than that. It is meaning, context, interpretation, experience, logical analysis, and much more.
(And not to quibble, but "exact time" makes the Scn concept of "truth" laughable to any scientist or any member of the public. This universe does not have "exact time." Space and time form a fabric (or in some metaphors a type of "fluid") that lacks any absolute structure. In a way of looking at it, we are all moving at the speed of light -- we can go no other speed. If we go faster through space, we go slower through time, and vice versa. It is as ridiculous to say something happened 44 quadrillion, 338 trillion, 992 million, 400 thousand, 98 years ago minus 10 seconds as it would be to say that scientists saw two events today in earth orbit that happened at exactly the same point in absolute time. One of my beef's with LRH is that he presented himself as a scientist. He wasn't. He had a profound knowledge gap of scientific principles and even known facts of physics. Don't get me started on "All About Radiation"!)
That's not entirely accurate. Judges also have to take into account precedents in related or similar cases and sometimes a whole range of legal instructions -- and not just for so-called uniform sentencing guidelines.
Judges may provide juries with short or long lists of instructions. One example from California: If a person was intoxicated (by any drug), and commits a crime, that intoxication cannot be taken to absolve the person of responsibility for a criminal act unless perhaps the person was forced or made to unknowingly become intoxicated.
In other words, you can't get drunk, go shoot someone, and claim drunkenness as your defense.
But if someone drugged you and you did something wrong, you might have a defense if you can show that you were unknowingly or forcibly drugged.
In cases that involve First Amendment like the Cook case does, there are tons of things that judges have to consider besides the bare facts.
Scientology's description of truth = exact time, place, form, event, the reality is that truth is more than that. It is meaning, context, interpretation, experience, logical analysis, and much more.
(And not to quibble, but "exact time" makes the Scn concept of "truth" laughable to any scientist or any member of the public. This universe does not have "exact time." Space and time form a fabric (or in some metaphors a type of "fluid") that lacks any absolute structure. In a way of looking at it, we are all moving at the speed of light -- we can go no other speed. If we go faster through space, we go slower through time, and vice versa. It is as ridiculous to say something happened 44 quadrillion, 338 trillion, 992 million, 400 thousand, 98 years ago minus 10 seconds as it would be to say that scientists saw two events today in earth orbit that happened at exactly the same point in absolute time. One of my beef's with LRH is that he presented himself as a scientist. He wasn't. He had a profound knowledge gap of scientific principles and even known facts of physics. Don't get me started on "All About Radiation"!)
cayce-case-um
Patron with Honors
Oops. For any conditioned to move to that ancient date, come back to present time.
At that particular moment I was picking my giant teeth with a sliver of diamond from an imploded star. Nothing to see there folks.
At that particular moment I was picking my giant teeth with a sliver of diamond from an imploded star. Nothing to see there folks.
Man de la Mancha
Patron with Honors
You are confusing "facts" with "law". The term "legal precedent" refers to law created by a previous case. The facts of that previous case cannot be substituted for facts in the present case, nor may the court presume facts that have not been properly admitted into evidence.As to the concept that "judges are duty bound to consider only the facts before them ..." (my emphasis added):
That's not entirely accurate. Judges also have to take into account precedents in related or similar cases and sometimes a whole range of legal instructions -- and not just for so-called uniform sentencing guidelines.
Judges may provide juries with short or long lists of instructions. One example from California: If a person was intoxicated (by any drug), and commits a crime, that intoxication cannot be taken to absolve the person of responsibility for a criminal act unless perhaps the person was forced or made to unknowingly become intoxicated.
In other words, you can't get drunk, go shoot someone, and claim drunkenness as your defense.
But if someone drugged you and you did something wrong, you might have a defense if you can show that you were unknowingly or forcibly drugged.
In cases that involve First Amendment like the Cook case does, there are tons of things that judges have to consider besides the bare facts.
Scientology's description of truth = exact time, place, form, event, the reality is that truth is more than that. It is meaning, context, interpretation, experience, logical analysis, and much more.
(And not to quibble, but "exact time" makes the Scn concept of "truth" laughable to any scientist or any member of the public. This universe does not have "exact time." Space and time form a fabric (or in some metaphors a type of "fluid"that lacks any absolute structure. In a way of looking at it, we are all moving at the speed of light -- we can go no other speed. If we go faster through space, we go slower through time, and vice versa. It is as ridiculous to say something happened 44 quadrillion, 338 trillion, 992 million, 400 thousand, 98 years ago minus 10 seconds as it would be to say that scientists saw two events today in earth orbit that happened at exactly the same point in absolute time. One of my beef's with LRH is that he presented himself as a scientist. He wasn't. He had a profound knowledge gap of scientific principles and even known facts of physics. Don't get me started on "All About Radiation"!)
cayce-case-um
Patron with Honors
No confusion actually. The culprit is the ambiguity of the original statement:
"judges are duty bound to consider only the facts before them ..."
If the word "only" is read to modify different levels of the assertion it can mean (a) only the facts of the case and no other facts can be considered, or (b) only the facts of the case can be considered, but other rules and precedents etc. are not ruled out.
Simple English ambiguity. Your point is taken, however; thanks.
If the word "only" is read to modify different levels of the assertion it can mean (a) only the facts of the case and no other facts can be considered, or (b) only the facts of the case can be considered, but other rules and precedents etc. are not ruled out.
Simple English ambiguity. Your point is taken, however; thanks.
Lulu Belle
Moonbat
This made the big time!
Now posted on Perez-Hilton!
Best part:
Former Scientology Exec Testifies Against The Church's Leadership!
Filed under: Icky Icky Poo > Tacky & True > Legal Matters > Sad Sad
Filed under "Icky Icky Poo"
http://perezhilton.com/2012-02-17-f...s-against-the-churchs-leadership#.T0BB6nl1jiQ
Now posted on Perez-Hilton!
Best part:
Former Scientology Exec Testifies Against The Church's Leadership!
Filed under: Icky Icky Poo > Tacky & True > Legal Matters > Sad Sad
Filed under "Icky Icky Poo"
http://perezhilton.com/2012-02-17-f...s-against-the-churchs-leadership#.T0BB6nl1jiQ
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
This made the big time!
Now posted on Perez-Hilton!
Best part:
Former Scientology Exec Testifies Against The Church's Leadership!
Filed under: Icky Icky Poo > Tacky & True > Legal Matters > Sad Sad
Filed under "Icky Icky Poo"
http://perezhilton.com/2012-02-17-f...s-against-the-churchs-leadership#.T0BB6nl1jiQ
Perez Hilton's blog has over 200 MILLION PAGE VIEWS per month!
Go get 'em dude!
Lulu Belle
Moonbat
This made the big time!
Now posted on Perez-Hilton!
Best part:
Former Scientology Exec Testifies Against The Church's Leadership!
Filed under: Icky Icky Poo > Tacky & True > Legal Matters > Sad Sad
Filed under "Icky Icky Poo"
http://perezhilton.com/2012-02-17-f...s-against-the-churchs-leadership#.T0BB6nl1jiQ
OSA is there in the comments section en masse....
G
Gottabrain
Guest
Children of Scientologists have a HUGE advantage in life.
No wonder they disconnect from their parents when their parents leave Scientology.
Who wouldn't want to keep licking floors into eternity?
G
Gottabrain
Guest
I don't believe that cash is quite as "clear" as it appears to be. There are true bills, and then there are political bills.
Like any politician that gets him/herself too ensnared in debts owed by promises made, DM has a vast number of people to support to continue protecting himself and the cult from investigations. Already he has lost media support - could it be that COS can no longer support the huge legal and political network necessary to silence the mobs? Control is slipping.
It would be naive to believe there aren't other unseen promises or deals going on with the bigger IAS contributors - financial investors, realtors and those dependent on Scns for their customer base. At the bottom, the pyramid crumbles.
Re Debbie -
I like the media attention. I'm glad she found some support. But her battle is not mine because she still does not see clearly enough to tell the whole truth - the truth that can and would close the doors of this evil cult forever.
And the rest of us continue to heal our broken lives, or help pick up the broken lives and pieces of those who did not enjoy the perks and benefits of the execs who were willing to be as ruthless as Hubbard and hide the crimes committed to achieve and maintain their positions of power and prestige.
We chose differently when we were in similar positions. We made different decisions.
I would rather the lives stop being broken and they all just wake up or at least live the rest of their lives peacefully without the need to compulsively, obsessively forward and/or reinforce the brainwashing onto others.
There is no halftruth in truth. I won't make excuses for her forwarding what she now must at least be partially aware is harmful or potentially harmful to others.
Her fight is not mine but I like the show.
F&*k Scientology. The whole thing has got to go. Let the whole truth be exposed.
Too bad we have to wait until after the US presidential elections before the FBI will move on it, though. But they will.
Lulu Belle
Moonbat
I've been reading a thread on WWP about Cook. WWP is a scary place but they have some really intelligent posters there.
I thought this was worth sharing. Hate to say it, but there's a lot of truth to what this person is saying.
https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/debbie-cooks-tro-hearing-update-thread.99943/page-7
I thought this was worth sharing. Hate to say it, but there's a lot of truth to what this person is saying.
https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/debbie-cooks-tro-hearing-update-thread.99943/page-7
sallysock said:
We ALL want more than just today, for four years we have wanted MORE, but each and every time we get THIS close, the cult pays them off and they CLAM up.
Debbie's clamup factor is high, the kool-aid runs deep in her veins, AND if she had knowledge of crime or participated, she is going to make like M and M and not incriminate herself.
Do you know how many times we have been THIS close? I recall one desperate Mom used Anons and our pressure to find and get in contact with her daughter. OH yes, she was all gung ho...going to help expose the cult, blah blah blah. THE SECOND she heard from her daughter and thought she had a chance, she blew Anon...that is just a pimple on the ass of episodes. Remember Aaron? Daniel?
Truth and justice for all means little to someone brain washed into sucking money from people for 17 years. She wrote it in her own hand, "fuck with me, I take you down". Why on earth would you expect anything else. Her testimony, while damaging to the cult, was a piss in the ocean compared to what she COULD say..and it was entirely self-serving. I am done getting all excited that people will do the right thing. Clams rarely ever do the right thing, and NEVER if the kool-aid is strong. NEVER. NOT ONCE. Cult got a little flavorflav of what Debbie is prepared to do if they don't back off. They will back off. So, sadly I am afraid you will have to be satisfied with just this.
The only way the cult is going to get rid of DM is for a trusted aid to stick a needle full of vistaril in his ass, li he did to LCon. Karma.
My bold. Ummm...no. This isn't about you. (Yes, that's also my bold.)
BTW, I hope that you are indeed, wrong. Call me greedy, but I want more than just today...
Cheers to a good day!
Response:BTW, I hope that you are indeed, wrong. Call me greedy, but I want more than just today...
Cheers to a good day!
We ALL want more than just today, for four years we have wanted MORE, but each and every time we get THIS close, the cult pays them off and they CLAM up.
Debbie's clamup factor is high, the kool-aid runs deep in her veins, AND if she had knowledge of crime or participated, she is going to make like M and M and not incriminate herself.
Do you know how many times we have been THIS close? I recall one desperate Mom used Anons and our pressure to find and get in contact with her daughter. OH yes, she was all gung ho...going to help expose the cult, blah blah blah. THE SECOND she heard from her daughter and thought she had a chance, she blew Anon...that is just a pimple on the ass of episodes. Remember Aaron? Daniel?
Truth and justice for all means little to someone brain washed into sucking money from people for 17 years. She wrote it in her own hand, "fuck with me, I take you down". Why on earth would you expect anything else. Her testimony, while damaging to the cult, was a piss in the ocean compared to what she COULD say..and it was entirely self-serving. I am done getting all excited that people will do the right thing. Clams rarely ever do the right thing, and NEVER if the kool-aid is strong. NEVER. NOT ONCE. Cult got a little flavorflav of what Debbie is prepared to do if they don't back off. They will back off. So, sadly I am afraid you will have to be satisfied with just this.
The only way the cult is going to get rid of DM is for a trusted aid to stick a needle full of vistaril in his ass, li he did to LCon. Karma.
Similar threads
