Debbie Cook strikes back

RogerB

Crusader
Nice, sane write-up in the VV and sane comments on the part of the attorney.

I wonder if Peggy has yet gotten pissed enough to counter sue on grounds of the CofS's malicious misuse of Jurisprudence.

It's time to put that issue of the record.

R
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
I guess with Rinder and Rathbun in San Antonio - it means a big legal showdown is coming to the courts in Texas in the near future. What's interesting is rather than critics or human rights crusaders getting attacked in court by the cult - it's actually going to be scientologist vs. scientologist.

A pretty formidable array of Ex-SO bigwigs is starting to form, and I hope more are coming. They come from a broad range of backgrounds in the SO. With just M&M+Deb you have a OSA chief, a chief ethics thug and Flag capt. If you take into account all the others that have left and might be willing to jump in the fray - Tom DeVotch, Amy Scobee, the INT escapees, etc.. and probably others we don't know about..it could be very interesting. Considering their different work areas in the cult they know a pretty big range of dirty tricks, internal tactics, policies and insider info and dirt to use as tools against the cult and what it may try against them.

The cult has never had to face anything quite like this - a united team of former high level execs. The fact that many of them don't think of themselves as "exes" but instead think they are the real scientologists only makes this more interesting.

I'm glad Debbie is ready for the fight - she is no doubt a formidable opponent. Maybe DM finally fucked with the wrong woman.

As for this particular case against Debbie from the cult -- I have a feeling things may just get so involved in the doctrinal aspects of Scientology -- the courts will throw the cult's suit out and say we don't settle religious disputes.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Was just checking up on my wording . . . I tend to speak British Law . . . and this is what I found in wikipedia.
:biggrin::biggrin:
OK, Village Voice you know where Debbie's attorney is . . . make sure he is aware of this :yes:

Notable vexatious litigants

The Church of Scientology. "Plaintiffs (Scientologists) have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter. This constitutes 'extraordinary, malicious, wanton and oppressive conduct.' As such, this case qualifies as an 'exceptional case' and fees should be awarded pursuant to the Lanham Act... It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this." (RTC v. Robin Scott, U. S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 85-711-JMI (Bx) 85-7197-JMI (Bx), January 20, 1993, Memorandum of Decision).[32][33]

There are also other charms on wiki such as . .

Malicious prosecution is a common law intentional tort, while like the tort of abuse of process, its elements include (1) intentionally (and maliciously) instituting and pursuing (or causing to be instituted or pursued) a legal action (civil or criminal) that is (2) brought without probable cause and (3) dismissed in favor of the victim of the malicious prosecution. In some jurisdictions, the term "malicious prosecution" denotes the wrongful initiation of criminal proceedings, while the term "malicious use of process" denotes the wrongful initiation of civil proceedings.
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
I was rather hoping that something like this was going to happen. Debbie sounds as though she is up for a fight and I hope that she gets the backup she needs.

Could it be that this was part of her plan all along - enrage Miscavige so that he is suckered into letting loose the shyster attack-dogs? I am so hoping that Debbie’s lawyer goes for the ‘invalid contract due to coercion’ ploy. This would be a fantastic opportunity to call some of those who have been physically abused by the Tiny Tyrant and have entered into public record their eye-witness accounts.

Then, the case becomes all about a nasty little cult leader who beats up people for his own perverted gratification.

It is looking more and more like the cult cannot win anything from this stupid action and stands to lose really big.

Axiom142
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
From Ortega's piece.

I asked him for a preview of what might come out in that hearing next week, and he said they would enter evidence for how Cook and her husband Wayne Baumgarten were compelled to sign such seemingly draconian non-disclosure agreements

Wow, really?

Whodathunk?

Rd00
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
From Ortega's piece.

I asked him for a preview of what might come out in that hearing next week, and he said they would enter evidence for how Cook and her husband Wayne Baumgarten were compelled to sign such seemingly draconian non-disclosure agreements

Wow, really?

Whodathunk?

Rd00


I think Debbie's lawyer should check with Mark Baker, because he said that there is no case for coercion.

In fact Mark was so certain of it I don't even know why the court system is needed when all they need to do is ask Mark.

These judges and lawyers are so ridiculous to try to operate without Baker, they just don't get it.
 

Sindy

Crusader
I think Debbie's lawyer should check with Mark Baker, because he said that there is no case for coercion.

In fact Mark was so certain of it I don't even know why the court system is needed when all they need to do is ask Mark.

These judges and lawyers are so ridiculous to try to operate without Baker, they just don't get it.

I really can't understand why a lawyer would even take on Debbie's case as it's so cut and dry. :melodramatic:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I really can't understand why a lawyer would even take on Debbie's case as it's so cut and dry. :melodramatic:

I don't understand how come a pair of highly-respected local lawyers takes on the case for the CofS. I mean, it's like being a Mafia lawyer. They can't be *that* hard-up for money.

It can't be doing their reputation any good at all. As I imagine they will discover as they get more and more involved in the blood and guts. :)

Paul
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
I really can't understand why a lawyer would even take on Debbie's case as it's so cut and dry. :melodramatic:

Yeah and perhaps you should start preparing your apology post to Mr Baker.

I admire your integrity.

Me? I would probably demand that he voluntarily sign an NDA before I apologize to him.

Rd00
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't understand how come a pair of highly-respected local lawyers takes on the case for the CofS. I mean, it's like being a Mafia lawyer. They can't be *that* hard-up for money.

It can't be doing their reputation any good at all. As I imagine they will discover as they get more and more involved in the blood and guts. :)

Paul

Paul,

You're just in time.

No, wait a sec.

You are late. I just found out I have to head out on the road. I was going to ask you to put Mark and I into one of those sessions of yours but I can't stick around.

Check with Mark to see if he will go into session without me tbeing here. Or maybe Gadfly can go in my place to reply what he thinks I would reply. If the session doesn't work well that way I am sure you have some excellent repair lists that can be used.

If Baker F/Ns then consider that I F/N.

If Gadly F/Ns in my place... well I would prefer a mutual F/N from Mark.

But if Gadly is BIs and wants to continue then keep at it.

Thanks for all your help.

Rd00
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
..

So, how long before David Miscavige "resigns", the cults realises its been remiss, a public mea culpa is broadcast far and wide, the "bad apples" are expelled, the new boss rides in on a white horse, an amnesty is offered to all Scientologists, and the criminals all get away?
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
According to Jeffrey's website, he's a veteran of more than 75 trials since 1989, and served as the mayor of Bulverde, a San Antonio suburb, for a couple of years.

But I asked him what his experience is in litigation with the Church of Scientology.

"None. I've had a mild interest over the years. I've always been aware of Scientology, but that's the full extent of it. Coincidentally I read the Reitman book on vacation last summer. It was quite fascinating," he says, referring to Janet Reitman's history of the church, last year's Inside Scientology.



"Coincidentally" he happened to read Inside Scientology while on vacation a year ago?

thinking.gif


Does anyone else besides me find that....really "coincidental"?
 

RogerB

Crusader
I don't understand how come a pair of highly-respected local lawyers takes on the case for the CofS. I mean, it's like being a Mafia lawyer. They can't be *that* hard-up for money.

It can't be doing their reputation any good at all. As I imagine they will discover as they get more and more involved in the blood and guts. :)

Paul

Paul, again is correct . . . what's new? :biggrin:

If one reads the "Vexation Litigation" piece on wiki, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation

Not only do we find the church cited as . . . what was that lovely label again? . . Notable vexatious litigants but the law provides, and the Courts have ruled those who are found to be frequent vexation litigants can be barred from filing cases/claims without the prior review and approval of a senior judge.

It can get to the point where such a litigant is simply barred form the courts.

This gets more and more delicious by the minute. Based on what I've read, not only is the agreement far too broad and restrictive to be valid, let alone enforceable, but I'd say there are no true grounds for a claim that it has been broken by that email.

I do hope Debbie is pissed enough to counter sue. :yes:

R
 

freethinker

Sponsor
This is going to be a really interesting case.

Isn't this the first time the church has taken someone to court who considers themselves an on- source Scientologist?

Isn't this the first time they are putting Scientology policy on trial?

Have they ever sued a Scientologist in good standing before?

No matter what the outcome, won't it further prove how insane Scientology really is?

By taking Debbie to court isn't the church violating it's own SP doctrine by reporting itself to the media?
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think Debbie's lawyer should check with Mark Baker, because he said that there is no case for coercion.

In fact Mark was so certain of it I don't even know why the court system is needed when all they need to do is ask Mark.

These judges and lawyers are so ridiculous to try to operate without Baker, they just don't get it.

Dear Mr HH, I must protest!

You are doing Mr Baker a grave disservice. Mark and I (as well as several others here) are actually legal experts.

The most expert kind there is, in fact.


Armchair lawyers.


dvs022835.jpg



Ax
 
Top