Debbie Cook strikes back

Veda

Sponsor
I just want to see Miscavige in deposition or in the dock. Bring on that day....

He's been deposed before. Years ago, I had the opportunity to hear five hours of his audio taped deposition. By accounts, he stood the entire time, and paced back and forth, chain smoking filterless camel cigarettes. The sound quality was poor, and the Scientology lawyers made questioning difficult.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Actually I quite like animals. :)

And thanks for the kind words, although I suspect you may have p!ssed off a few people by adopting such a reasonable attitude. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker

If Mr Cyan wouldread a few more threads he might be lucky enough to find the one about John Travolta and if he reads that thread he should be able to see how I came to your defense over the issue of Travolta accepting abuse.

But you don't need sympathy anyways. I can tell by much of your writing that you are quite a resilient individual behind all those words that are spoken.

I was even thinking today about your style of eloquence in your writing and you know what thought dawned on me?

You would make an exceptional lobbyist in DC.

Despite any differences that I see you and others having I respect something about you. You are like that individual at a company board meeting that might point out some peculiarties that are being overlooked. It does not matter if they are valid points or not in the end. Someone has to be there to point them out. I guess some would call it the Devil's Advocate.

However if you were at the board meeting in the CoS with the Pope on a Rope he would probably jump across the table and try to beat the snot out of you and tell you to knock off the CI.

And if you fought back I would be cheering for you.

Carry on mate.

Rd00
 

tikk

Patron with Honors
I don't know how many people have read the agreement that Debbie and Mark signed, but one thing I noted is that the CO$ stated that the litigation would occur in Florida or California should it come to that but they filed deliberately in Texas.

Now how could that possibly be an advantage for them? Anyone?

This clause is only a choice of law clause, not a choice of forum clause. The case can take place wherever a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. But the Texas court is generally bound to apply Florida law, per the NDA, unless the relevant law of Texas and Florida is so incongruent that, say, the Texas state constitution would be violated.

I would guess that there's a chance the case could be 'removed' by the defense to a Texas federal court, given that the parties are diverse (from different states), and because the defendants are likely to invoke a defense necessitating resort to federal law (the US Constitution). I don't know enough to assess the pros and cons of removing to federal court here because I'm unfamiliar with the courts. Removing isn't mandatory; either a state or federal court can exercise jurisdiction here from all I can see, so it's mostly a question of strategy.
 
... I was even thinking today about your style of eloquence in your writing and you know what thought dawned on me?

You would make an exceptional lobbyist in DC. ...

Now that one was mean! :melodramatic:


... Despite any differences that I see you and others having I respect something about you. You are like that individual at a company board meeting that might point out some peculiarties that are being overlooked. It does not matter if they are valid points or not in the end. Someone has to be there to point them out. I guess some would call it the Devil's Advocate. ...

And you're right about that one, too! :duh:


Mark A. Baker :coolwink:
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'd like to point out that being part of a good, credible, successful attorney/ law firm is choosing your clients carefully and cases even more so. I don't care how well paying a client is, any attorney who takes on a client and pursues a dog of a case just for billable hours is desperate and/or a shyster. it's not good business unless your plan is to close shop and retire when all is said and done - legal communities are small with long memories. Doing dirty work for a cult is not something a truly reputable, prosperous firm would want any part of - and yet another reason the cult has their own slimy in-house counsel doing most of their dirty work. (Most attorneys wouldn't be willing to risk dis-barrment doing to unethical legal bidding of the cult and their endless harassing nuisance suits.)

I will bet you the cult approached some bigger name firms in Texas first and got turned down flat. The cult is good at smelling desperation and it looks like they found the firm in bad enough straits to trade in on their local reputation/ name for some fast cash infusions.

I still believe when all is said and done Debbie will win because the case will be tossed. This case verges to close to religious doctrinal issues for it to go far in the courts because it's not just about contract law. The fact is Debbie sent out an email to co-religionist debating whether her church was adhering to it's core doctrines. She did not go to the media, she did not reveal internal secrets, etc... The contract they had her sign was trying to prevent the airing of dirty laundry and illegal actions to the public and media and her suing the cult for damages. The contract didn't count on her starting a internal debate on the cult not following LRH policy among cult members. The fact it leaked online and to the media isn't really her fault and they can't prove it was her intention.

I think Debbie put some real thought into this plan of action and DM may have stepped into her trap. I certainly hope we are about to witness Debbie beat DM at his own shitty game and as part of the process all the insane abuses and money sucking will go into the court record and get plastered in the media.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Perhaps they hope to take advantage of a Texas judge who is unfamiliar with Florida law?
This clause is only a choice of law clause, not a choice of forum clause. The case can take place wherever a court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. But the Texas court is generally bound to apply Florida law, per the NDA, unless the relevant law of Texas and Florida is so incongruent that, say, the Texas state constitution would be violated.

I would guess that there's a chance the case could be 'removed' by the defense to a Texas federal court, given that the parties are diverse (from different states), and because the defendants are likely to invoke a defense necessitating resort to federal law (the US Constitution). I don't know enough to assess the pros and cons of removing to federal court here because I'm unfamiliar with the courts. Removing isn't mandatory; either a state or federal court can exercise jurisdiction here from all I can see, so it's mostly a question of strategy.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I agree with most everything you say here but if you read the court filing from the CO$, they claim Debbie admitted to sending out the emails and encouraging others to spread it further, even if anonymously. The most interesting aspect of the whole case is that Debbie was, at the time she sent the email, in good standing with the church and is pleading that church doctrine be followed. That has got to become an issue somewhere in the course of the trial.
I'd like to point out that being part of a good, credible, successful attorney/ law firm is choosing your clients carefully and cases even more so. I don't care how well paying a client is, any attorney who takes on a client and pursues a dog of a case just for billable hours is desperate and/or a shyster. it's not good business unless your plan is to close shop and retire when all is said and done - legal communities are small with long memories. Doing dirty work for a cult is not something a truly reputable, prosperous firm would want any part of - and yet another reason the cult has their own slimy in-house counsel doing most of their dirty work. (Most attorneys wouldn't be willing to risk dis-barrment doing to unethical legal bidding of the cult and their endless harassing nuisance suits.)

I will bet you the cult approached some bigger name firms in Texas first and got turned down flat. The cult is good at smelling desperation and it looks like they found the firm in bad enough straits to trade in on their local reputation/ name for some fast cash infusions.

I still believe when all is said and done Debbie will win because the case will be tossed. This case verges to close to religious doctrinal issues for it to go far in the courts because it's not just about contract law. The fact is Debbie sent out an email to co-religionist debating whether her church was adhering to it's core doctrines. She did not go to the media, she did not reveal internal secrets, etc... The contract they had her sign was trying to prevent the airing of dirty laundry and illegal actions to the public and media and her suing the cult for damages. The contract didn't count on her starting a internal debate on the cult not following LRH policy among cult members. The fact it leaked online and to the media isn't really her fault and they can't prove it was her intention.

I think Debbie put some real thought into this plan of action and DM may have stepped into her trap. I certainly hope we are about to witness Debbie beat DM at his own shitty game and as part of the process all the insane abuses and money sucking will go into the court record and get plastered in the media.
 
Mark, this is a reminder to stay positive! :happydance:

409517_360122547334231_359947857351700_1519108_1361137305_n.jpg
 

Petey C

Silver Meritorious Patron
I just want to see Miscavige in deposition or in the dock. Bring on that day....

Yeah, and after that I want to see him in the RPF's RPF for a couple of decades eating leftovers and beans and rice. I wanna see some blisters on those soft little hands! I'd like to see a 100-person comm ev comprising a few of the people he's brutalised. I'd also like to see him pay back ever cent he has received and/or filched, plus interest, together with his bikes and cars and cowboy boots and expensive suits. Then when he's done, he can go and sit in a bad nursing home in a baaaad part of LA, for another few years. Or maybe just get offloaded with $500.

Am I'm a peaceable person for the most part.
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
Yes, they may claim it was intentional but proving it is a whole other ballgame. Her ISP will have a record of the original emails sent and will probably show a core list of current members. I'd like to see the church try to sue the individuals who sent the org email on to media or SPs.

But I think the main point is the content of the email really isn't anything more than a debate on following cult doctrine. Akin to a catholic sending an email out to his church members saying the pope isn't following the bible/ Jesus closely enough. Courts won't touch internal religious debates with a ten foot pole -with good reason. If they allowed that kind of abstract theological debate in court it would have more religious dogma disputes to resolve than drug offenders to deal with.

I might have to read that bizarre contract again closely to be sure but I don't think she violated the agreement. She carefully couched it as her opinion on the interpretation and implementation of LRH policy/scripture to members. The court would be insane to step into that cow patty.

I agree with most everything you say here but if you read the court filing from the CO$, they claim Debbie admitted to sending out the emails and encouraging others to spread it further, even if anonymously. The most interesting aspect of the whole case is that Debbie was, at the time she sent the email, in good standing with the church and is pleading that church doctrine be followed. That has got to become an issue somewhere in the course of the trial.
 

elwood

Patron with Honors

ChurchOfCylontology

Patron with Honors
Us Texans often comment that in California you can get 1/2 the house for five times the money. That house would bring about $700K in Thousand Oaks.

Maybe you can explain to me why the property taxes were $4,500 on a $177K home then? I thought Texas was supposed to have favorable taxes compared to California? That is 2.5%, which is a LOT higher than most areas in Los Angeles County which are in the 1.02% range.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Originally Posted by HelluvaHoax!

Being a Scientologist is never having to say you don't know everything.

:hysterical:

Ain't that the truth! There is nothing like good 'ole fanatical 100% total certainty! :duh:

... and that has something to do with Baker? He's not the kind of scientologist you're painting here, never was and never will be.

Meanwhile, let's not muddy up yet another thread...

Panda, I NEVER said ANYTHING in this post about Mark Baker.

Reread exactly WHAT I quoted and WHAT I said in response (without reading anything in-between-the-lines, please).

I liked THAT isolated part of Hoaxter's post, that's what I quoted, because I felt that it rings true for the over-indoctrinated Scientologist type looney.

I NEVER said here or anywhere else that I consider Mark to be one of those. I don't. That's why I have stayed out of this bickering. Now, yes, Mark might be one of some type of something or another, but NOT one of those. :coolwink:

Apology accepted! :thumbsup:
 
Panda, I NEVER said ANYTHING in this post about Mark Baker.

Reread exactly WHAT I quoted and WHAT I said in response (without reading anything in-between-the-lines, please).

I liked THAT isolated part of Hoaxter's post, that's what I quoted, because I felt that it rings true for the over-indoctrinated Scientologist type looney.

I NEVER said here or anywhere else that I consider Mark to be one of those. I don't. That's why I have stayed out of this bickering. Now, yes, Mark might be one of some type of something or another, but NOT one of those. :coolwink:

Apology accepted! :thumbsup:

A very understandable mistake though.....
 
IMO, if the church looks like they are taking a beating, I think they will use Plan B - whip out the check book and look at her, bat their eyelashes a few times for effect, and pick up the pen....

That is what happened with Danny M., which would have been a nice strike against them; but there is no way they want precidents against them.

I wonder if she has a price? Or if it is more than mere money? Say a post change?

Mimsey
 

Thrak

Gold Meritorious Patron
This is awesome! Like totally fer sure. Now the cult will play perhaps it's most desperate moves ever with the full day to day coverage by Tony O. I would conclude that OSA's "handling" of Tony O has been less than effective? Just a hunch but it's kind of hard to win when 99.99999% of the population hates you.

What was that bit about the double triangles ARC and KRC? Or as I thought once friendliness and competence? Hate and utter stupidity is what scientology is really about as exemplified by DM.

Maybe I seem a bit bitter but scientology is simply a trap laid for well intentioned and often needy people designed to exploit as much money and work from the above for a completely fraudulent and contemptuous purpose. I can only hope they get what they deserve.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I had to go and read over Debbies email again. In doing so, I can see all the areas that the church could push for violation but the thing is is that they will have to prove damages and with statistics that go up and down and mostly trending down, they will be hard pressed to prove that it was Debbies email that caused any decline. They will have to prove that people left or stopped donating because of Debbies email and because we know how they operate, someone who has been declared for following Debbie's email isn't about to testify willingly and to prove that any decline in income is due to Debbie would be extremely difficult to prove.

Couple that with her following Church policy and the excessiveness of the restraints and their case doesn't look so easy.
Yes, they may claim it was intentional but proving it is a whole other ballgame. Her ISP will have a record of the original emails sent and will probably show a core list of current members. I'd like to see the church try to sue the individuals who sent the org email on to media or SPs.

But I think the main point is the content of the email really isn't anything more than a debate on following cult doctrine. Akin to a catholic sending an email out to his church members saying the pope isn't following the bible/ Jesus closely enough. Courts won't touch internal religious debates with a ten foot pole -with good reason. If they allowed that kind of abstract theological debate in court it would have more religious dogma disputes to resolve than drug offenders to deal with.

I might have to read that bizarre contract again closely to be sure but I don't think she violated the agreement. She carefully couched it as her opinion on the interpretation and implementation of LRH policy/scripture to members. The court would be insane to step into that cow patty.
 
Top