Debbie Cook strikes back

TG1

Angelic Poster
Obviously, Debbie was in good standing until she sent the January 1, 2012 (right date?) email.

How do I know this? Because prior to that, Debbie was Facebook friends with Jojo Zawawi, Global Facebook Espee Defriending and Disconnection I/C. And Jojo knows more than anybody else in the world about who is in good odor in the cult and who is not.

TG1
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Truthfully, it would give me great pleasure to see Jojo Zawawi called as a witness in ANY trial -- and get grilled by opposing counsel 'til she was sweating and getting pissy in a way I bet she is really good at getting pissy. Her cultish arrogance would be so apparent to judge and jury and to media sitting in the courtroom.

After all, she's already semi-famous on Facebook, with all her thousands of friends. I think she deserves to become even more famous.

:coolwink:
 

RogerB

Crusader
Interesting. Since when does expelled get the luxury of a NDA.

Generaly corporations will in lieu of firing an executive will offer an NDA and an agreement that the person has resigned.

If they are saying that Debbie is expelled and it was really a LOA with an NDA then the Church is in violation right there with tat statement.

That would be akin to a corporation setting a resignation agreement with an NDA and then turning around and saying later that they fired the executive.

Mr. Baker will you please chime in and find fault with my statements above and put me in my proper place please.

Rd00

No fault my Dear RD . . . . you have picked up on a key point of the cult's predilection for lying!!

If she had been expelled, she would not have been contracted to a confidentiality agreement . . . . and she would not have been able to communicate to all those thousands of Scns in good standing.

In actuality . . . this slander that she was expelled is something she can and aught counter sue on.

These dunce culties keep shooting themselves in the foot.

R
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
What were Karin Pouw's exact words about Debbie being expelled? I've just spent 10 minutes looking online but can't find them. I remember Pouw saying something about Debbie thought she was in good standing but she isn't, but I don't remember the wording closely enough to see if the wording covers expelling her after the email was sent although making it look like it was prior (without actually saying that).

Paul
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
What were Karin Pouw's exact words about Debbie being expelled? I've just spent 10 minutes looking online but can't find them. I remember Pouw saying something about Debbie thought she was in good standing but she isn't, but I don't remember the wording closely enough to see if the wording covers expelling her after the email was sent although making it look like it was prior (without actually saying that).

Paul

In response to e-mailed questions, church spokeswoman Karin Pouw said the dispute is no more than “a breach-of-contract case.”

“Debbie Cook wants to divert attention away from her lack of compliance with the terms she voluntarily agreed to in signing the contract,” she added.

Pouw said Cook has been expelled from the church and never held an important post.

“She has not attended church in years and has become a squirrel. A squirrel is someone who alters Scientology Scripture; a heretic,” she added.


Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...ff-hits-Bexar-court-2996788.php#ixzz1lSadlF4L
 

Man de la Mancha

Patron with Honors
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:



There are also other charms on wiki such as . .

This cannot possibly be abuse of process because breach is not really an issue here - the agreement was clearly breached. The question is whether the agreement was valid and enforceable to begin with.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
This cannot possibly be abuse of process because breach is not really an issue here - the agreement was clearly breached. The question is whether the agreement was valid and enforceable to begin with.


Agreed.

And on closer examination of the agreement, there appear to be issues of failure to disclose and get Debbie's explicit waiver of other constitutional rights such as:

Freedom of Religion (to practice Scientology): As mentioned in some of my earlier posts, if the NDA is strictly, literally and globally enforced, Debbie would not have the right to follow Scientology's holy scripture that mandate the "gradients of ethics" (and countless other KSW reporting responsibilities) wherein she would be required to (examples):

* "Noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person."
* "Talking about another person derogatorily."
* "Talking to the person derogatorily."​

Wasn't that what her email was exactly? Talking to fellow parishioners whom she had correctly determined were out-ethics by not following Ron's scripture and KSW itself?

Freedom of Religion (other religions): Scientology claims to be non-denominational and compatible with all other religions. What if Debbie were a practicing Catholic and went to confession to reveal her sins and part of that was the sins of omission whereby she failed to take action against crimes and human rights abuses from Scientology's senior management? Per the NDA, the CoS's theory is that she would have waived her right to be a Catholic. Clearly this was not disclosed in the agreement and is in clear violation of other human rights afforded & guaranteed to her as a citizen of the United States.

Unalienable Rights (Healthcare both physical and psychological): Quoting from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." What if Debbie's life (physical health) requires that she detail to her health care providers the physical trauma that she has endured while in the Sea Org, such as sleep deprivation, dietary insufficiencies and other bizarre practices such as mandatory toxic, fecal infested swamp cleaning without Hazmat protection? What about if her "Happiness" requires psychological counseling where she is asked questions about the terror and trauma she was forced to endure while undergoing gang bang sec checking or standing in a garbage container with a sign that read "LESBIAN" as scores of her co-workers hurled insults, character assassination and vicious and false accusations at her?

The list of rights that Debbie, according the the church, has forfeited is much longer than the above sampling. But, in fact, Debbie never explicitly waived those rights because they were never disclosed in the contract itself. And when executing the agreement, there is little doubt that she was entirely bereft of any legal representation to understand the absurdly crafted and one-sided agreement that she was pressured to sign under extreme duress.

Viewed another way, what if Debbie had signed a lease with a landlord who failed to disclose that the house had asbestos? What if the landlord's contract gave her $50,000 cash to remodel and decorate the house and the lease contract stated that the landlord is not responsible for any health or safety issues that may arise from her occupancy of the premises? And what if the contract had an NDA covenant that prevented her from saying anything about the house to anyone?

In a Scientology-run world, she would not only become a victim of deadly asbestos poisoning, she would additionally be sued to death for having called a toxic inspector to come into her home to determine why she was having trouble breathing.

I expect this case, if she is well-represented and can financially stay the course, to have explosively bad consequences for the Cult of Scientology.

This also assumes that her legal team can sustain a covertly-waged Fair Game crime wave that seeks to destroy their personal and professional lives.
 
Last edited:

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
This cannot possibly be abuse of process because breach is not really an issue here - the agreement was clearly breached. The question is whether the agreement was valid and enforceable to begin with.

Yarr, and back to the most obvious core of the matter, whether the initial actions of Mrs. Cook was a result of deeply held religious conviction (which the obvious answer is yes), as an IANAL folk on the sidelines with giant bucket of popcorns and beerz, this aspect will get the whole thing tossed if properly addressed. My opinion.


Meanwhile, back in the [strike]deep[/strike] derp recesses of the cult, Davey has an epiphoney~
thestupiditburns.jpg




:whistling:
 

RogerB

Crusader
Originally Posted by RogerB
Was just checking up on my wording . . . I tend to speak British Law . . . and this is what I found in wikipedia.

OK, Village Voice you know where Debbie's attorney is . . . make sure he is aware of this



There are also other charms on wiki such as . .

This cannot possibly be abuse of process because breach is not really an issue here - the agreement was clearly breached. The question is whether the agreement was valid and enforceable to begin with.

The point I was making and referring to is the method and manner in which the Cof$ litigates . . . and this in reference, as stated in my earlier post, to Debbie's attorney's statement of the spurious accusations leveled at Debbie by the Cof$ in order to get the injunction against her. Not that they consider a breach of agreement has occurred.

The legal doctrine I wrote on is in regard to how one uses the Courts and process . . . . It's got nothing to do with whether Debbie breached her agreement to "stay silent."

Your sentence above is a little jumbled to me . . . and it appears a mixture of topics or issues. :confused2::confused2:

R
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Agreed.

And on closer examination of the agreement, there appear to be issues of failure to disclose and get Debbie's explicit waiver of other constitutional rights such as:

Freedom of Religion (to practice Scientology): As mentioned in some of my earlier posts, if the NDA is strictly, literally and globally enforced, Debbie would not have the right to follow Scientology's holy scripture that mandate the "gradients of ethics" (and countless other KSW reporting responsibilities) wherein she would be required to (examples):

* "Noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it to the person."
* "Talking about another person derogatorily."
* "Talking to the person derogatorily."​

Wasn't that what her email was exactly? Talking to fellow parishioners whom she had correctly determined were out-ethics by not following Ron's scripture and KSW itself?

Freedom of Religion (other religions): Scientology claims to be non-denominational and compatible with all other religions. What if Debbie were a practicing Catholic and went to confession to reveal her sins and part of that was the sins of omission whereby she failed to take action against crimes and human rights abuses from Scientology's senior management? Per the NDA, the CoS's theory is that she would have waived her right to be a Catholic. Clearly this was not disclosed in the agreement and is in clear violation of other human rights afforded & guaranteed to her as a citizen of the United States.

Unalienable Rights (Healthcare both physical and psychological): Quoting from the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." What if Debbie's life (physical health) requires that she detail to her health care providers the physical trauma that she has endured while in the Sea Org, such as sleep deprivation, dietary insufficiencies and other bizarre practices such as mandatory toxic, fecal infested swamp cleaning without Hazmat protection? What about if her "Happiness" requires psychological counseling where she is asked questions about the terror and trauma she was forced to endure while undergoing gang bang sec checking or standing in a garbage container with a sign that read "LESBIAN" as scores of her co-workers hurled insults, character assassination and vicious and false accusations at her?

The list of rights that Debbie, according the the church, has forfeited is much longer than the above sampling. But, in fact, Debbie never explicitly waived those rights because they were never disclosed in the contract itself. And when executing the agreement, there is little doubt that she was entirely bereft of any legal representation to understand the absurdly crafted and one-sided agreement that she was pressured to sign under extreme duress.

Viewed another way, what if Debbie had signed a lease with a landlord who failed to disclose that the house had asbestos? What if the landlord's contract gave her $50,000 cash to remodel and decorate the house and the lease contract stated that the landlord is not responsible for any health or safety issues that may arise from her occupancy of the premises? And what if the contract had an NDA covenant that prevented her from saying anything about the house to anyone?

In a Scientology-run world, she would not only become a victim of deadly asbestos poisoning, she would additionally be sued to death for having called a toxic inspector to come into her home to determine why she was having trouble breathing.

I expect this case, if she is well-represented and can financially stay the course, to have explosively bad consequences for the Cult of Scientology.

This also assumes that her legal team can sustain a covertly-waged Fair Game crime wave that seeks to destroy their personal and professional lives.

OH HELL YEAH !!! :thumbsup:

Now THAT communicates. Does it pass the Mark A. Baker examination? :coolwink:
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Yes, it is revealing. Mostly it reveals that you are 'challenged' when it comes to understanding the written word.


Mark A. Baker :eyeroll:

Aren't you the boy who frequently comments about people ihere on ESMBnsulting others?
And something about that being in violation of the ROC of ESMB ?

Wasn't that you doing both of those things ?

My how the shoe fits !

Notice he wasn't even mentioned in my post ? LOL !

Hey, do we have a Celebration for the Birthday of Mark A. Baker ?
 

Man de la Mancha

Patron with Honors
The point I was making and referring to is the method and manner in which the Cof$ litigates . . . and this in reference, as stated in my earlier post, to Debbie's attorney's statement of the spurious accusations leveled at Debbie by the Cof$ in order to get the injunction against her. Not that they consider a breach of agreement has occurred.

The legal doctrine I wrote on is in regard to how one uses the Courts and process . . . . It's got nothing to do with whether Debbie breached her agreement to "stay silent."

Your sentence above is a little jumbled to me . . . and it appears a mixture of topics or issues. :confused2::confused2:

R
An abuse of process claimant must first win the underlying suit, which is for breach of contract. Since she clearly breached the agreement, Cook can only be victorious if the underlying agreement is somehow unenforceable. If so, it would be difficult to make the defect the basis of an abuse of process claim. It also requires proof of some wrongful ulterior motive for bringing suit, which would be difficult to establish because there was such a clear case for breach and thus a proper purpose for bringing suit. I suppose there might be some way to prove abuse of process if it could be proved (as opposed to alleged) that CoS entered the agreement with intent to bring suit on what they knew was an unenforceable contract just to harrass Cook. That, however, would be very hard to prove.
 

Man de la Mancha

Patron with Honors
Agreed.

And on closer examination of the agreement, there appear to be issues of failure to disclose...

Very interesting Hellahoax. How about failure to disclose an essential term of the agreement - the identity of the parties. It's probably a stretch, but it is conceivable that CoS, by its requirement that members install anti-anti software and don't listen to media, intentionally prevented Ms. Cook from knowing the true identity (or nature) of the other contracting party. However, very difficult for Cook, a super-insider, to claim she was deprived of such knowledge.

I'm sure the attorneys are already looking at this from every angle, but it's still fun to talk about it. I must say, this whole Scientology thing is the sweetest scandal on planet earth at this time, and very hard to not talk about, but I'm gonna stop for the night!
 

ChurchOfCylontology

Patron with Honors
Also, I would like to re-post here something relevant I just wrote on this thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26157-ACA-on-Debbie-Cook-s-trial&p=655805#post655805

Re: ACA on Debbie Cook's trial

Quote Originally Posted by WildKat
She already took the money - $50,000. As did her husband. You think they'll offer her more at this point??

All she needs to do is get a contract for a million or so from a publisher or producer, give the $100,000 back to the church (what they paid for her silence - now contract null and void), and then let loose with all the details, and I'm sure she's got some doozies!

Give us the deets Debbie!!!!



Yeah, but I am talking the real money, not DM's pocket change she and her husband already got.

A million or so from a publisher/producer is a good idea. I just hope she will choose that (if offered),
despite of much nicer DM's offer (hypothetically, $10+ millions, $100+ millions of dollars?) to STFU forever...

We are not talking about some little SP who no one pays attention to. DM knows it, Scientology staff and public knows it.
Debbie generated a lot of attention from within Scientology, rightfully so. Add media/Internet.
This sort of situation never happened before.

The way I see it, at this point - can a true Scientologist (Debbie Cook) who wants a reform/things to be on source again
- refuse lots of money in exchange for silence?



Either way is going to be very telling. And very entertaining.
:)


Ummm.....that's not how it works. You can't pay off the lawsuit damages and think that the NDA is still not enforceable for future damages. David Miscavige will continue to sue Debbie for every utterance she makes about the topic of Scientology and she would wind up like Gerry Armstrong, getting fined for every time she says the word "Scientology".

Also, book deals don't work like that either. You get an advance to pay for the writing, format, printing, binding, and other costs associated with making the book. The advance is like a large credit card where you only start to see money from the book once the advance is paid off with interest. No publishing company is going to give Debbie a million dollars with the intent that part of it will go to pay off a previous legal debt.

I hope the person that made this comment was joking. It is a pretty ridiculous scenario.
 
That's a good question.

To me, personally, it almost doesn't matter if she wins or loses. The noise and the bad PR generated for COS will be the same regardless.

The big problem the church has with this, IMO, is that everything that Debbie wrote in her email is an observable fact for anyone who is onlines at an org. It's not the same as Int execs in the Hole or DM beating people up. There's not the same "he said she said" about it.

People get sucked dry for money as soon as they step foot into an org. If you have been in an org any time in at least the last 20 years, you know that.

The church can sue her for saying that. They may win. They may lose. It doesn't change the fact that it's the truth, it happens, and everyone knows it.

I definitely don't disagree with you about Debbie Cook, Mick. To me, she's not really the point of any of this.


Yeah, I also think, that is why Debbie's poison is soooooooooo potent. Everyone
knows it's true. And that it why it looks like whatever they say they make it worse, so the DA pack could make the cult look worse and weaker, to those forced to read it, not stronger.
 
Very interesting Hellahoax. How about failure to disclose an essential term of the agreement - the identity of the parties. It's probably a stretch, but it is conceivable that CoS, by its requirement that members install anti-anti software and don't listen to media, intentionally prevented Ms. Cook from knowing the true identity (or nature) of the other contracting party. However, very difficult for Cook, a super-insider, to claim she was deprived of such knowledge.

I'm sure the attorneys are already looking at this from every angle, but it's still fun to talk about it. I must say, this whole Scientology thing is the sweetest scandal on planet earth at this time, and very hard to not talk about, but I'm gonna stop for the night!

Can DC use Karin Prouw's statement to the press that DC never held any senior management position as proof that she was not a super-insider.?
 
Someone is assuming she got expelled at the same time as the NDA. Per her email she thought she was in good standing. Maybe they expelled her *after* the email came out.
Something to know is this - they won't waste a stamp to mail you your goldenrod. It violates their policy on Dead Filing, where in the SP is removed from the org mailing list. (or nearly so) I know of several instances where a person was declared and they had no idea they had been declared (or for how long). Debbie could have been declared the day she signed the papers and took the check. Who knows for sure?

Thus, she would have no idea she was declared, since they wouldn't take the time to tell her.

Whether she was declared prior or not, 1/10,000 of a second after someone read her e-mail, her goldenrod was smokin' hot off the press!!!

If some lurker gets to see her DA pack, please check the date on her declare - that should be interesting.

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Something to know is this - they won't waste a stamp to mail you your goldenrod. It violates their policy on Dead Filing, where in the SP is removed from the org mailing list. (or nearly so) I know of several instances where a person was declared and they had no idea they had been declared (or for how long). Debbie could have been declared the day she signed the papers and took the check. Who knows for sure?

Thus, she would have no idea she was declared, since they wouldn't take the time to tell her.

A Declare that no-one knows about is pointless. The whole purpose of one is to stop truths about the CofS being spread to paying customers who might stop paying.

(The "technical" bit about an anti-social intimate preventing case gain seems valid, but when was the last time one of those was issued?)

Paul
 
Top