Debbie Cook strikes back

[RogerB]

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.

Indeed! And I'd be quite surprised if Debbie hadn't either sought legal advise on the action of the email before firing it off or at a minimum, being a sharp lady, read very carefully the applicability of the NDA she signed and applied a knowledge of law to it that is readily available on the web.

Rog

 

[RogerB]

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.

Actually, I think it can be viewed in even better terms . . . she was giving advise to friends on how to deal with/handle discrepancies of Church behavior versus doctrine.

It's a purely personal matter between friends!

R

 

[Gadfly]

Indeed! And I'd be quite surprised if Debbie hadn't either sought legal advise on the action of the email before firing it off or at a minimum, being a sharp lady, read very carefully the applicability of the NDA she signed and applied a knowledge of law to it that is readily available on the web.

Rog

One would hope so. The "best" would have been to have a skilled & experienced attorney read over the NDA and the e-mail, before she sent it out. Combing through each of them line by line as a way to ensure that WHEN the C of S came after her, which if she had any brains at all she must have known that they would, that then THEY (Deb & Co.) would have things exactly lined up where they wanted them to be. Ah, we can only hope.

But, I have no idea. Watching, watching, watching . . . . . (with the quiet postulate that this makes 1) LOTS of noise about the lunacy of, 2) negative PR for, and 3) great amounts of trouble for the Church of Scientology).

 

[Gadfly]

Here's an idea. Put him in a giant automated electric potato peeler, run it a few revolutions and ask him for the entire truth about his rise to power and every single illegal, malevolent, harmful or disreputable act he's committed and / or ordered along the way. Spray him with pepper spray if he won't talk and then back in the peeler for a few more revolutions.

EP is achieved when the whole story, the full truth on it all, has been attained, he's cognited on what an outrageously suppressively evil bastard he's been, then turn off the potato peeler and get the f/n.

While still holding the can of pepper spray have him voluntarily sign an NDA stating his confession was freely given as an act of conscience and contrition on his part as an earnest penitent seeking to redeem his immortal soul. He may then receive a quarter to call someone who cares, a cold shower and a box of band-aids.

Ah, but per those with experience in the business of "extracting information as a profession", torture is not very dependable. The recipients of torture have been shown to often be willing to say just about anything to stop the pain. :confused2:

Or, after confessing, he can be offered a chance to "come clean" and "rehabilitate himself" on the RPF. DM "in the hole". A curious image indeed!

Me? I don't need to enjoy any images of "Die Hard" style justified violence against the sorry soul known as David Miscavige. Twenty to thirty years in jail (getting it up the butt every night, and enjoying a daily "sausage sandwich", being the attractive tiny midget "bitch" that he is) would be fine with me.

 

[Axiom142]

…

Mark seems to have raised the hackles of a few (I'm thinking of HH, Axiom and, to a lesser degree, Rene, who seems to have at least retained a sense of humor and wit). I suspect this is for two reasons:

...

That would be Mister 142 to you, Cy.

Actually I quite like Mark, or at least I find myself having a certain affinity for his ESMB persona, not having met him in person. Or shared a hot tub.

The comment I made includes myself and others. I was making a dig at all of us who like to speculate upon matters that we aren’t really expert in – i.e. we were being ‘armchair lawyers’. The mere fact that we aren’t qualified to do so, doesn’t prevent us from passing judgement. In fact, it makes it more fun!

Mark does get a lot of grief here and I suspect it has more to do with the anger that most of us feel towards a cult that has caused untold misery in the past and continues to do so today. Since Mark (apparently) supports the subject of Scientology, he naturally becomes a conduit for this anger. But not from me, I can assure you.

Axiom142

 

[Axiom142]

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

I totally agree Paul.

They might well be in dire need of business, what with the recession and all, but if you jump into bed with the devil, you are going to get burned. The cult is so universally despised that any connection with them, especially in such an egregious abuse of a person’s fundamental human rights, is going to be very bad in the long run.

Axiom142

 

[Gadfly]

I have a question, that all are free to answer. This has to do with "damages" that a company can sue for.

With a business, the business can sue and expect to be able to collect on damages if it can be shown that the defendent behaved in some way that caused a loss of image or income for the business. For example, if some newspaper ran a story on how Pepsi had been adding addictive drugs to its product, and this story caused loss of sales and reputation for Pepsi, and it was FALSE, then Pepsi could sue the newspaper for damages. If the CEO of Pepsi also afterwards had nightmares, expensive therapy and a nervous breakdown, I suppose they could also sue for that.

But, if it were TRUE that Pepsi had been adding addictive drugs to their product, the lawsuit would have ZERO validity. Slander and results of the slander require "lies". If the "truth" caused the loss of income and reputation, well tough shit. And, Pepsi could then be sued for different violations.

For example, when the tobacco companies were being sued, based on reports that they had been intentionally adding addictive substances to their products to "increase sales", this could have gone two very different ways. If the stories were FALSE, then the tobacco companies could sue the people who wrote the stories and spread them around, but if it WERE TRUE, then the tobacco companies become the guilty party (which they were).

So, with this Scientology thing. First, Scientology is a "religion". Are they also considered a "business", who can sue for infrigment on "brand", loss of income, and harm done to their reputation? And if so, second, if what Debbie says is TRUE, how can they win ANY lawsuit that wants to collect damages IF WHAT SHE REPORTED IN HER E-MAIL WAS TRUE?

I understand that violations of the NDAs are a separate issue, and this is where the argument about "coercion" will enter in.

But, this stuff about the Church wanting to collect for "damages" seems ludicrous. Yes? No?

Let's go all you armchair lawyers; have at it!!!!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Reasonableness always upsets $cns and Ex-$cns, MAB . . . you aught to know that: or did you miss that valuable lesson of $cn by not having your services in one of those lowly "orgs."

Rog

Let's just say I didn't necessarily agree with everything I was told. Unreasonable of me, I know.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Jquepublic]

I have a question, that all are free to answer. This has to do with "damages" that a company can sue for.

With a business, the business can sue and expect to be able to collect on damages if it can be shown that the defendent behaved in some way that caused a loss of image or income for the business. For example, if some newspaper ran a story on how Pepsi had been adding addictive drugs to its product, and this story caused loss of sales and reputation for Pepsi, and it was FALSE, then Pepsi could sue the newspaper for damages. If the CEO of Pepsi also afterwards had nightmares, expensive therapy and a nervous breakdown, I suppose they could also sue for that.

But, if it were TRUE that Pepsi had been adding addictive drugs to their product, the lawsuit would have ZERO validity. Slander and results of the slander require "lies". If the "truth" caused the loss of income and reputation, well tough shit. And, Pepsi could then be sued for different violations.

For example, when the tobacco companies were being sued, based on reports that they had been intentionally adding addictive substances to their products to "increase sales", this could have gone two very different ways. If the stories were FALSE, then the tobacco companies could sue the people who wrote the stories and spread them around, but if it WERE TRUE, then the tobacco companies become the guilty party (which they were).

So, with this Scientology thing. First, Scientology is a "religion". Are they also considered a "business", who can sue for infrigment on "brand", loss of income, and harm done to their reputation? And if so, second, if what Debbie says is TRUE, how can they win ANY lawsuit that wants to collect damages IF WHAT SHE REPORTED IN HER E-MAIL WAS TRUE?

I understand that violations of the NDAs are a separate issue, and this is where the argument about "coercion" will enter in.

But, this stuff about the Church wanting to collect for "damages" seems ludicrous. Yes? No?

Let's go all you armchair lawyers; have at it!!!!

I agree it makes no sense, but they built it into the NDA she and Wayne signed so they were anticipating that she had the ability to do real harm with what she could say.

In case you missed it on the other thread, Freethinker posted the links for us and they are well worth a read:

Quoting Freethinker:

Don't know if this has been posted but here is the court case.


http://asesor.xscientology.com/wp-co...al issue.pdf

and the agreement.

http://asesor.xscientology.com/wp-co.../Agreement.pdf

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Since Mark (apparently) supports the subject of Scientology, ...

I prefer to say that I support aspects of the subject of scientology. Emphasis on the lower case 's'. The capitalize form as a proper noun begs of the Co$ which I have not supported at all for over thirty years. My only interest in scientology has always been for those aspects of the subject which I find useful & beneficial.

Otherwise I fully agree with your comments and appreciate your having made them.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

Let's just say I didn't necessarily agree with everything I was told. Unreasonable of me, I know.


Mark A. Baker

That's why we smaller beings look to you for guidance. Please help us.

I give up. This is thread is about Mark A. Baker.

 

[Axiom142]

I have a question, that all are free to answer. This has to do with "damages" that a company can sue for.

With a business, the business can sue and expect to be able to collect on damages if it can be shown that the defendent behaved in some way that caused a loss of image or income for the business. For example, if some newspaper ran a story on how Pepsi had been adding addictive drugs to its product, and this story caused loss of sales and reputation for Pepsi, and it was FALSE, then Pepsi could sue the newspaper for damages. If the CEO of Pepsi also afterwards had nightmares, expensive therapy and a nervous breakdown, I suppose they could also sue for that.

But, if it were TRUE that Pepsi had been adding addictive drugs to their product, the lawsuit would have ZERO validity. Slander and results of the slander require "lies". If the "truth" caused the loss of income and reputation, well tough shit. And, Pepsi could then be sued for different violations.

For example, when the tobacco companies were being sued, based on reports that they had been intentionally adding addictive substances to their products to "increase sales", this could have gone two very different ways. If the stories were FALSE, then the tobacco companies could sue the people who wrote the stories and spread them around, but if it WERE TRUE, then the tobacco companies become the guilty party (which they were).

So, with this Scientology thing. First, Scientology is a "religion". Are they also considered a "business", who can sue for infrigment on "brand", loss of income, and harm done to their reputation? And if so, second, if what Debbie says is TRUE, how can they win ANY lawsuit that wants to collect damages IF WHAT SHE REPORTED IN HER E-MAIL WAS TRUE?

I understand that violations of the NDAs are a separate issue, and this is where the argument about "coercion" will enter in.

But, this stuff about the Church wanting to collect for "damages" seems ludicrous. Yes? No?

Let's go all you armchair lawyers; have at it!!!!

Well since I am an expert, I’ll have a go at answering this.

If it were simply about defamation (libel), then this would be a very different case. Debbie made some allegations in her email, but the cult would have a hard time proving that they had been defamed (no reputation to lose) and that these statements were false (yes, I know that they don’t have to prove this, but since Debbie and her friends would be far more credible witnesses and thus believed by any jury, effectively the cult would have to disprove her statements).

But, the cult have this NDA and receipts for the $50,000 paid to Debbie and Wayne each. They obviously think that all they have to do is prove that she breached the terms of the NDA and claim any amount of damages they see fit. The latter part is clearly ludicrous, but we are talking about America here where everyone is obsessed with money (allegedly).

In the UK, there is such a concept of an ‘unfair contract’ where a contract is so one-sided, or so restrictive, that the whole thing would become null and void. I’m not sure if such a concept exists across the pond.

But this whole case sums up my mystification with the whole legal system in the colony. You have a Bill of Rights and all this other stuff about personal freedoms and yet a big, nasty and wealthy corporation can just ignore this and litigate any individual into ruin, just because they are big, nasty and wealthy.

In any case, this suit isn’t really about two people violating a contract. It is about the abuses of a nasty vindictive cult. I have a feeling that this case will be a watershed.

A line has been drawn in the sand.

Axiom142

 

[RogerB]

I have a question, that all are free to answer. This has to do with "damages" that a company can sue for.

With a business, the business can sue and expect to be able to collect on damages if it can be shown that the defendent behaved in some way that caused a loss of image or income for the business. For example, if some newspaper ran a story on how Pepsi had been adding addictive drugs to its product, and this story caused loss of sales and reputation for Pepsi, and it was FALSE, then Pepsi could sue the newspaper for damages. If the CEO of Pepsi also afterwards had nightmares, expensive therapy and a nervous breakdown, I suppose they could also sue for that.

But, if it were TRUE that Pepsi had been adding addictive drugs to their product, the lawsuit would have ZERO validity. Slander and results of the slander require "lies". If the "truth" caused the loss of income and reputation, well tough shit. And, Pepsi could then be sued for different violations.

For example, when the tobacco companies were being sued, based on reports that they had been intentionally adding addictive substances to their products to "increase sales", this could have gone two very different ways. If the stories were FALSE, then the tobacco companies could sue the people who wrote the stories and spread them around, but if it WERE TRUE, then the tobacco companies become the guilty party (which they were).

So, with this Scientology thing. First, Scientology is a "religion". Are they also considered a "business", who can sue for infrigment on "brand", loss of income, and harm done to their reputation? And if so, second, if what Debbie says is TRUE, how can they win ANY lawsuit that wants to collect damages IF WHAT SHE REPORTED IN HER E-MAIL WAS TRUE?

I understand that violations of the NDAs are a separate issue, and this is where the argument about "coercion" will enter in.

But, this stuff about the Church wanting to collect for "damages" seems ludicrous. Yes? No?

Let's go all you armchair lawyers; have at it!!!!

Well Gaddie . . . . don't puzzle yourself over it it . . . this damages thing fits under the heading of "outlandish and too broad claims" by the Cof$ as stated already by Debbie's attorney. They've simply dreamed up whatever shit they could to claim grounds to do a hit on her.

Axiom wrote:

In the UK, there is such a concept of an ‘unfair contract’ where a contract is so one-sided, or so restrictive, that the whole thing would become null and void. I’m not sure if such a concept exists across the pond.

Yes, similar doctrines exist here. Many cases as examples have occurred where corporations have sought to restrict "key" employees
when they leave employment . . . and the courts have held very frequently that the agreements were invalid and unenforceable and the suits brought by former employers didn't apply because the terms of restriction on the former employee were far too broad and restrictive to the extent of prohibiting obtaining any new employment in a similar setting . . . and the courts held that that was invalid and could not be done.

I feel a similar ruling for our Debbie will come down.

R

 

[LA SCN]

... Twenty to thirty years in jail (getting it up the butt every night, and enjoying a daily "sausage sandwich", being the attractive tiny midget "bitch" that he is) would be fine with me.

Well alrighty then!!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Me? I don't need to enjoy any images of "Die Hard" style justified violence against the sorry soul known as David Miscavige. Twenty to thirty years in jail (getting it up the butt every night, and enjoying a daily "sausage sandwich", being the attractive tiny midget "bitch" that he is) would be fine with me.

I would prefer that he be removed from a position of trust and placed in protective custody where he would have the opportunity to address his 'inner demons' and improve as a being while he directed his efforts towards attempting to at least partially undo the damage for which he is responsible.

I see no value in punishment. It's a tool of anger & hatred which serves only to perpetuate unreason & hatred.


Mark A. Baker

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I would prefer that he be removed from a position of trust and placed in protective custody where he would have the opportunity to address his 'inner demons' and improve as a being while he directed his efforts towards attempting to at least partially undo the damage for which he is responsible.

So, what are you suggesting? Just say it instead of cryptic generalities this time, okay?

Are you saying that David Miscavich should receive auditing ('as a being')?

If so, what specific C/S are you writing for him that will handle his case?

Why do I expect that you will not be able to answer these questions with specifics?

 

[SomeGuy]

Punishment is some times a good thing!

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

It is a civil matter - he'll just resign. Take some cash and go. It will be all or nothing with him - he won't play second fiddle to anyone. The church will thank him for his good work, and quietly make changes needed to move forward.

Unless the cops, feds or other law enforcement agencies have a reason to nab him, he will walk.

Ka-Ching! Golden paracute like any other CEO.

Mimsey

 

[freethinker]

You bring up an interesting point and that point being is that these NDA are common to the commercial world and from what I know, damages are awarded for giving away trade secrets or loss of income due to whatever.

The CO$ is constantly asserting that it is a religion and for religions to have Trade Secrets for the products that they sell is unheard of. Donations ordinarily are voluntary, despite tithes and are not considered commercial from what I know.

This could be a legal angle to blow this out of the water, or maybe not but it is highly unusual in commercial law.

I have a question, that all are free to answer. This has to do with "damages" that a company can sue for.

With a business, the business can sue and expect to be able to collect on damages if it can be shown that the defendent behaved in some way that caused a loss of image or income for the business. For example, if some newspaper ran a story on how Pepsi had been adding addictive drugs to its product, and this story caused loss of sales and reputation for Pepsi, and it was FALSE, then Pepsi could sue the newspaper for damages. If the CEO of Pepsi also afterwards had nightmares, expensive therapy and a nervous breakdown, I suppose they could also sue for that.

But, if it were TRUE that Pepsi had been adding addictive drugs to their product, the lawsuit would have ZERO validity. Slander and results of the slander require "lies". If the "truth" caused the loss of income and reputation, well tough shit. And, Pepsi could then be sued for different violations.

For example, when the tobacco companies were being sued, based on reports that they had been intentionally adding addictive substances to their products to "increase sales", this could have gone two very different ways. If the stories were FALSE, then the tobacco companies could sue the people who wrote the stories and spread them around, but if it WERE TRUE, then the tobacco companies become the guilty party (which they were).

So, with this Scientology thing. First, Scientology is a "religion". Are they also considered a "business", who can sue for infrigment on "brand", loss of income, and harm done to their reputation? And if so, second, if what Debbie says is TRUE, how can they win ANY lawsuit that wants to collect damages IF WHAT SHE REPORTED IN HER E-MAIL WAS TRUE?

I understand that violations of the NDAs are a separate issue, and this is where the argument about "coercion" will enter in.

But, this stuff about the Church wanting to collect for "damages" seems ludicrous. Yes? No?

Let's go all you armchair lawyers; have at it!!!!

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I would prefer that he be removed from a position of trust and placed in protective custody where he would have the opportunity to address his 'inner demons' and improve as a being while he directed his efforts towards attempting to at least partially undo the damage for which he is responsible

Send him to Casa Blanca - I hear there is a top auditor there who can crack any case.

Mimsey