What's new

A question for exes - would you sue?

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
There have been a lot of battles over the years on various Scientology boards over the subject of getting settlements from COS, taking money as donations as a Scientology critic, and other associated issues.

I'd like to open the subject for discussion, and I think this is an ideal board to do it on.

Many, if not most of us, are ex-Scientologists. Some were public only, some were org or mission staff, some were XSO. Some were a combination of the above.

So, here are my questions.

1) Did you consider suing the church when you got out?

2) What were your reasons for thinking of doing so?

3) What were your reason for not doing so (assuming you didn't)?

4) Do you think it is morally right or wrong to settle with COS and get money for the settlement?

5) How do you feel about critics who have sued, won, got settlements, and now have gag orders or other stipulations?

Any other thoughts?
 

ExScnDude

Patron with Honors
1) Did you consider suing the church when you got out?

2) What were your reasons for thinking of doing so?

3) What were your reason for not doing so (assuming you didn't)?

4) Do you think it is morally right or wrong to settle with COS and get money for the settlement?

5) How do you feel about critics who have sued, won, got settlements, and now have gag orders or other stipulations?

1. No

2. N/A

3. I wanted to really flourish and prosper financially through my own efforts. Suing the CoS would have been off my purpose line.

4. This is a mixed bag for me. I feel like I got into Scientology and joined staff on my own determinism; and anything that happened to me along the way involved to some extent my own agreement. I could have walked away from it at any time (and ultimately did). If I were to sue the church, then I'd have to mock up that whole victim thing. That's just not me. On the other hand, if the midget and his minions were to come after me and cause me grief or harm my family in any way, then yeah, I might go after them.

5. If you have mocked yourself up as some kind of "freedom fighter", some kind of brave "righter of wrongs", and then you accept cash from them by agreeing to shut up about the evils of the cult .... I think that would demonstrate a lack of personal integrity.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
5. If you have mocked yourself up as some kind of "freedom fighter", some kind of brave "righter of wrongs", and then you accept cash from them by agreeing to shut up about the evils of the cult .... I think that would demonstrate a lack of personal integrity.


It's kind of a Catch 22, though, isn't it?

If you get embroiled in a battle with COS, there's really no other way for it to end than a settlement. Assuming you win (which is what I would assume you would want to do if you battle with them) you will pretty much inevitably wind up with money and some kind of a gag order.

I don't know of any other possible outcome. Do you?
 

Sharone Stainforth

Silver Meritorious Patron
1) Did you consider suing the church when you got out?

2) What were your reasons for thinking of doing so?

3) What were your reason for not doing so (assuming you didn't)?

4) Do you think it is morally right or wrong to settle with COS and get money for the settlement?

5) How do you feel about critics who have sued, won, got settlements, and now have gag orders or other stipulations?

Any other thoughts?


1)I was too young,however i'm giving it some thought at the moment.Not on my own behalf but for a family member.

2)I feel very strongly that a member of my family was totally ruined.

3) see 1.

4)I think it is justified when people have been ripped off financially or have suffered harassment and/or abuse at the hands of the church of Scientology.

5)I couldn't be more pleased for people have successfully sued and won.

However, i do feel very strongly about having to sign a GAG agreement.I think that speaks volumes in itself,IMO that proves there is much to hide.
Personally i could not accept money from anyone if it meant that i couldn't talk/discuss details about my time in the SO.Especially as i think people have a right to know what went on and what goes on today.

Any Church or any other organization for that matter that commit crimes,abuse human beings especially children,use false tactics to part people from their money need to be exposed.

When i was "in" i could see that it was an extremely dangerous place to be,which is why i escaped.Keeping quiet was my way to "survive" i was a kid.
Now i'm an adult and i see things very differently.

Tamasin
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
However, i do feel very strongly about having to sign a GAG agreement.I think that speaks volumes in itself,IMO that proves there is much to hide.
Personally i could not accept money from anyone if it meant that i couldn't talk/discuss details about my time in the SO.Especially as i think people have a right to know what went on and what goes on today.


With the possible exception of Wollersheim, I don't than anyone has managed to sue the church and get a settlement without some kind of a gag order.

Am I right or wrong about that?

And Wollersheim's settlement was riddled with other "issues", from what I recall.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
With the possible exception of Wollersheim, I don't than anyone has managed to sue the church and get a settlement without some kind of a gag order.

Am I right or wrong about that?

And Wollersheim's settlement was riddled with other "issues", from what I recall.

Larry didn't have a settlement; it was a final judgment.

As for the usual 'gag orders', most of us would prefer to see them non-existent, but, sometimes it's purely practical. It's very difficult to pursue an civil suit against a billion-dollar monster, and, most courts put a lot of weight behind finding 'settlements', regardless of gag orders.

I find it hard to fault someone for eventually agreeing to one.

For my part, although I could have any number of potential 'causes of action' against the 'Church', trying to go the 'civil case' route just isn't practical. There are many more useful things for me to do, including mere public opposition. The failure to sue the 'Church' by no means implies agreement with it or acceptance of it.

Zinj
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Not me- but then again, my situation was not like some people's.

I have worked in the legal arena since around 1992- and I know that to sue, you have to have some kind of grounds for suit.

I didn't. I just didn't lose enough.

but many people have. Many people have been ruined. Giving all their money due to coercive regging for fool ideal org projects, IAS, and many other things.

Plus the things many staff have suffered.

There are people who definitely have and have had grounds for suit. And although it wasn't the way John and I went, I have nothing but empathy for those people.

I think CofS should be held accountable. But I also know that many people are afraid of things CofS would do to them. This, I understand, too.
 

ExScnDude

Patron with Honors
It's kind of a Catch 22, though, isn't it?

If you get embroiled in a battle with COS, there's really no other way for it to end than a settlement. Assuming you win (which is what I would assume you would want to do if you battle with them) you will pretty much inevitably wind up with money and some kind of a gag order.

I don't know of any other possible outcome. Do you?

True. But did you ever see Dudley Dooright take a bribe from Snidely Wiplash?

:no: :no: :no:
 

The Oracle

Gold Meritorious Patron
There have been a lot of battles over the years on various Scientology boards over the subject of getting settlements from COS, taking money as donations as a Scientology critic, and other associated issues.

I'd like to open the subject for discussion, and I think this is an ideal board to do it on.

Many, if not most of us, are ex-Scientologists. Some were public only, some were org or mission staff, some were XSO. Some were a combination of the above.

So, here are my questions.

1) Did you consider suing the church when you got out?

2) What were your reasons for thinking of doing so?

3) What were your reason for not doing so (assuming you didn't)?

4) Do you think it is morally right or wrong to settle with COS and get money for the settlement?

5) How do you feel about critics who have sued, won, got settlements, and now have gag orders or other stipulations?

Any other thoughts?

1. No.
2. n/a
3. I never came to the conclusion that every person in that arena should be harmed attacked or suppressed via a general law suit.
4. I would have to know all of the details of the case. They are not all the same.
5. I assume if a settlement was made both parties came to acceptable terms. win win in the end?

Other thoughts: A group of teenagers in New York got togteher and filed a class action suit against MCdonalds fast food corp. for making them fat, as they had been living off of fast food and had gained quite a bit of weight.

If you had a bouncer at the front door of MCdonalds fast food who refused to let anyone in to buy food that was deemd overweight, then they would have a civil rights law suit on them for violating civil rights.

Some of these arena's can get a little complex socially.

I think if I were to take legal action I would have taken action out against private individuals, and not let them hide under the umberella of "The Church of Scientology".

You wouldn't get any money of course, but you could get in a cramm sideways.

Attacking the Church is far more profitable but it allows the actual people who were the source to linger unnoticed.

On the other hand HUbbard himself said, "Take the motion that comes in and use it to win."

I can't blame anyone for following that advise.

Law suits have put in ethics to some degree.

I don't think less of the person who originates them, I always see it as a bad indicator for the Church.

That girl Lisa who died in CW, that was a wake up call.

That happened because of conditions going on in the Church that were not on the plus side of survival.

If that had been my child I would have different thoughts.

Even then though, I wouldn't have gone after the whole Church and everybody in it.

But I would have made it my business to find out exactly WHO was in on that and they would not have been able to escape my view.

There were actual people there that allowed that to happen.

Even then, what are you going to do? They are already in a prison.

That's why I say every case is different.

T.I.
 
Last edited:

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
1) Did you consider suing the church when you got out?

2) What were your reasons for thinking of doing so?

3) What were your reason for not doing so (assuming you didn't)?

4) Do you think it is morally right or wrong to settle with COS and get money for the settlement?

5) How do you feel about critics who have sued, won, got settlements, and now have gag orders or other stipulations?

1) No
2) n/a
3) I had nothing to sue about
4) It would depend on the specific case
5) It would seem they got what they wanted or an acceptable substitute. The CoS may have won the PR battle with a gag order, but it hardly won the war!

Other thoughts: unless someone is damaged by another party to the point where their income or health suffers badly, then I don't really hold with all this sue sue sue mentality that appears to be a primarily US phenomenon and is, unfortunately, spreading.

To sue, one needs to continue to fight the battle after the worst of it was fought already and one presumably came off worst. Then one has to play the victim role, thereby continuing to mock up the damage done. In a sitution where one is left physically crippled, say, then this is justifiable. In other cases the person would likely be better off simply moving on with their life.

Being on staff and, apparently, even being public in the CoS these days is bit like being in a war. Shit happens in wars. My parents fought a real one, but they didn't sue the German government or moan about it for the rest of their lives.

Nick
 

Terril park

Sponsor
It's kind of a Catch 22, though, isn't it?

If you get embroiled in a battle with COS, there's really no other way for it to end than a settlement. Assuming you win (which is what I would assume you would want to do if you battle with them) you will pretty much inevitably wind up with money and some kind of a gag order.

I don't know of any other possible outcome. Do you?

As far as I know with my limited knowledge of the law, it is not normally
a requirement of settlement to agree to a gag order. This is usually the result of legal and other pressure. An example, ( and a new category for you is Gerbode and Mayo; 10 years of litigation)

Karen Spaink and Zenon Parnousis have won most cases without a gag order, and still have a pending appeal potentially on bringing upper levels
into the public domain.

Anyone else win without submitting to a gag ordeer?

Bonnie Woods?

Maybe Pooks could ask Henri. He probably has the relevant data.
 

jodie

Patron with Honors
1) Did you consider suing the church when you got out?

2) What were your reasons for thinking of doing so?

3) What were your reason for not doing so (assuming you didn't)?

4) Do you think it is morally right or wrong to settle with COS and get money for the settlement?

5) How do you feel about critics who have sued, won, got settlements, and now have gag orders or other stipulations?

Any other thoughts?

1. No
2. N/A
3. I did not blame the CoS for my own stupid choices.
4. Depends on the circumstances - some people do it just to make a buck, and that is morally wrong. Others have been really harmed, and a settlement would be appropriate in the same way as if any other organization had harmed them.
5. Depends how they got there - who did they use and abuse to get themselves into a better bargaining position? How many people did they hurt along the way? Gag orders really stink, and the circumstances would have to be really extreme to accept something like that. I don't have much time for those who accepted gag orders, but they may have been forced into a position where they had no other choice.I can live with it (gag orders and settlement) as long as those litigants did not hurt people or use them to get what they wanted from the CoS (in some cases, people just wanted a payout so they don't have to work again).

- jodie
 

Sharone Stainforth

Silver Meritorious Patron
With the possible exception of Wollersheim, I don't than anyone has managed to sue the church and get a settlement without some kind of a gag order.

Am I right or wrong about that?



From what iv'e read i think you're right.

That is why i said "thinking".Its' not something i would enter into lightly.

Since i decided to look into my past and reunite with my Father i have had to do a lot of thinking.I have gone to Hell and back.It is not a journey i have enjoyed.

It has in some respects given me a new lease of life.


However, in some ways it has opened wounds,ones which should never have been there in the first place,in all conscience i can not sit back placidly and forget it ever happened.

If i move on now and let it go then who has won?

The so called "Church" of Scientology. That is who.

Hubbard might be dead and it is him i blame for what happened to my family,as in my Dad and myself,Hubbard and his god damned conditions and policy letters and all these years later the CofS still continues,how many other people have to go through similar experiences before the abuses stop.

I do not see myself as some Freedom Fighter out to put to rights all the wrong in the world.If only.Ha Ha.

So move on,yes i will,but also i will make sure people know my story and if it helps to stop just one family from what my family went through then it will be worth it in my eyes.

People do what they have to do in order to survive,i know this from personal experience.I could never condemn someone for surviving the only way they know how.Each experience is different.
 

jodie

Patron with Honors
PS

Wollersheim got a court-stipulated settlement, not an agreement between the parties out of court.

Settlements and gag orders are agreed upon between the parties out of court.

- jodie
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Wollersheim got a court-stipulated settlement, not an agreement between the parties out of court.

Settlements and gag orders are agreed upon between the parties out of court.

- jodie

It wasn't a settlement. He won. Further appeals (by Co$) reduced the award amount and years of foot-dragging on actual payment only ceased when it became apparent that CSI would be pulled into any further appeals. That's when the Cult caved.

It wasn't a settlement; court-ordered or otherwise.

Zinj
 

jodie

Patron with Honors
It wasn't a settlement. He won. Further appeals (by Co$) reduced the award amount and years of foot-dragging on actual payment only ceased when it became apparent that CSI would be pulled into any further appeals. That's when the Cult caved.

It wasn't a settlement; court-ordered or otherwise.

Zinj


Yeah right OK. My mem:unsure: ory is a bit fuzzy. All that time in the wog world.

- jodie
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
I find all of your replies very interesting.

As I suspected, people who were actual exes, to a great degree, seem to have a different viewpoint on the whole "sue the church" thing than critics who weren't exes.

I hope more people give their input to this thread.
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
There have been a lot of battles over the years on various Scientology boards over the subject of getting settlements from COS, taking money as donations as a Scientology critic, and other associated issues.

I'd like to open the subject for discussion, and I think this is an ideal board to do it on.

Many, if not most of us, are ex-Scientologists. Some were public only, some were org or mission staff, some were XSO. Some were a combination of the above.

So, here are my questions.

1) Did you consider suing the church when you got out?

Not really. I was too busy trying to put my life back together. In times of great distress it did cross my mind but I felt that the battle was one I didn't have the strength of money to see out.

2) What were your reasons for thinking of doing so?

I felt that a fraud had been committed and that I had lost at least 7 years of wages and worked as a virtual slave for an Organisation that had promised me something that it knew it could never deliver in exchange for my "slavery"

3) What were your reason for not doing so (assuming you didn't)?

As above - no money and not enough strength. Plus at that time I was trying to save my marriage

4) Do you think it is morally right or wrong to settle with COS and get money for the settlement?

I think it's fine if they have legitimately been harmed. The CoS should be treated no different to any other corporation (or tobacco company).

5) How do you feel about critics who have sued, won, got settlements, and now have gag orders or other stipulations?

I think that gag orders are an expected part of a CoS settlement. My only objection is when someone (the litigant) gathers the support of the critic community based on the promise that they would never give up their rights to speak, then seemingly do an about face and sign the gag order once the cheque is waved in their face. Then to make matters worse they try to pretend that there is no gag order when their obviously is.

Having said that, I think you'd have to have a large set of balls to go down that path in the first place and I applaude any opposition to Scientology. I don't believe those who have litigated against Scn deserve automatic "legend status" as is sometimes seen. It's just another way to fight Scn and quite often results in a nice payout but also the loss of free speech.

Any other thoughts?

Nup.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I find all of your replies very interesting.

As I suspected, people who were actual exes, to a great degree, seem to have a different viewpoint on the whole "sue the church" thing than critics who weren't exes.

I hope more people give their input to this thread.

? I'm not sure that I see any clear-cut delineation. More apparent is a divide between those so naive as to think that 'sue em!' is some kind of simple answer and those who recognize the difficulty involved. Very common are 'Church' taunts about 'why don't you sue them then!?' as a means of distracting from the deliberate and 'religious' obstruction of justice that the 'Church' uses to undermine the judicial system.

I can't think of many lawsuits actually filed against the 'Church', but, there's a high percentage of successful ones. Most lawsuits are 'Church' driven and seldom carried out to a 'win', but only to the exhaustion of the opponent.

The only reason the 'Church' brings it up is to imply that there is no real 'cause of action' or tort, because, otherwise they would be sued. It's deliberately misleading.

Personally, I'd welcome *any* lawsuits against the 'Church' and would like to see nothing more than a time when suing the 'Church' of Scientology was seen as the kind of 'cash cow' that slip and fall is nowdays.

But; they've got too much money and too little respect for the law for most actual damage they've caused. I'm for *criminal* prosecution.

And, for a moratorium on calls for 'class action' lawsuits until those calling comprehend the difference between calling for such and magic beans.

Zinj
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
*Most*; practically all lawsuits mentioned on this thread were not lawsuits begun by 'Church' critics or opponents, but by the *Church*. In some rare cases those also entailed 'counter-suits', but, the number of lawsuits filed on their own can be counted on the fingers of one hand; Woods, Wollersheim, Flynn, Pattinson and most of those were *won*.

Zinj
 
Top