Debbie Cook strikes back

[oneonewasaracecar]

It's prostitution.

potato/potato.

 

[Smurf]

Scientology attorney's website is down.

http://www.clemens-spencer.com/

OK. Who's the culprit??

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Maybe either too many people looked at once, and it crashed...

or they decided that they want to update or improve it as they are getting more media attention? :confused2:

Maybe they started to get fan mail? NOT!

 

[cyan]

Actually, HH, I read the entire thread. And I thought your reaction to his assertions were accurately described as "hissy" in nature. Your response seemed defensive and annoyed. I'll be honest with you, HH. You came across as a bully. Just sayin'.

If that wasn't the case, I'm just curious why Mark go the brunt of your erudition and not everyone else who also made assertions based on their own reading of the facts. Perhaps it was because most other posters, coincidentally, agreed with your general argument?

And I think you may be mistaken in exactly what Mark is asserting if you think Debbie's raising the issue of coercion invalidates what he said. Mark, to my reading of his posts, has simply indicated that the court is likely to rule narrowly on the issue of a breach of contract using established case law. Debbie can raise any issue she wants (just as many of us here have done). That doesn't mean the court will be convinced of the argument's validity (much as we'd like it to be so).

Happy to engage on these points. Also happy to move on and sponge up the intelligent opinions of you and others here, from whom I've learned a great deal.

I am not picking a fight by any stretch. My wife correctly points out that in a battle of wits, I'm the guy holding a butter knife at a gun fight. Further, I suspect I've already taken more space on this than anyone else cares for. Given how much genuinely interesting information there is (and will be within the week) to dissect here, I apologize if my post came across as hijacking. It was not intended to be so.

Oh. And I am not now, nor have I ever been a Scientologist.

 

[TG1]

BTW, Ms. Cook's lawyer's Web site is up and running well at http://www.sjmlawyers.com/.

 

[Div6]

Scientology attorney's website is down.

http://www.clemens-spencer.com/

OK. Who's the culprit??

Rackspace, mebbe. The name resolves to 65.61.186.72 which is a Rackspace netblock...the name registration hasn't expired.

 

[TG1]

Actually, I think our friend Magoo would describe a few recent comments above as indistinguishable from posts made by those seeking to sow unnecessary dissension in an otherwise focused thread.

This thread IMHO is focused rather well on a topic of great interest to many members, lurkers, members of the press, and general public.

Let's stay on topic!

TG1

 

[FlunkYou]

I can't believe they'd be willing to go to court over an EMAIL. I hope she's sitting on something really big that would drag DM into the courts with her. That guy has gotta go!

 

[Gadfly]

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

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

 

[Smurf]

Texas is both a big state, but a relatively small community in the legal arena. Had drinks with one of my attorneys and chatted about this when SP times first broke it. He said he knew the firm the COS hired, they had a good name, but supposedly were loosing attorneys because of financial problems.

I guess. Mark Cannan's home is assessed at only $177, 610?? That would buy a large shed in California.

http://sa.blockshopper.com/property/000000636672/4403_huntington_woods/

At least the other cult lawyer has a mini-manse.

http://sa.blockshopper.com/property/000000143373/202_w_summit_avenue/

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

...for all I know, Mark is a complete a-hole who regularly kicks puppies and reveals to little children that Santa is a myth.

Only Miscavige's out-ethics detecting dog knows for sure.

IANDMOEDD but I say he is out ethics. Actually, I don't think that, i just wanted to incorporate IANDMOEDD into a sentence to remind everyone of Miscavige's favourite captain (who reminds me of Caligula's horse. I wonder how intimate David is with his dog. He has no friends and his wife has been missing for about 5 years. Hmmmm).

Not being a lawyer or an American, I have no idea where this is going except to the top of the news. As a pessimist, I suspect this won't be the end of Scientology, just a small part of it unwinding.

I suspect the Debbie Cook incident is more a symptom of the demise than the demise itself. I've been wrong before. I underestimated Saint Nick. I hope I am underestimating this.

 

[freethinker]

Just spend more time here and all will be revealed. Don't think anyone is upset by your post, it's an honest opinion.

Actually, HH, I read the entire thread. And I thought your reaction to his assertions were accurately described as "hissy" in nature. Your response seemed defensive and annoyed. I'll be honest with you, HH. You came across as a bully. Just sayin'.

If that wasn't the case, I'm just curious why Mark go the brunt of your erudition and not everyone else who also made assertions based on their own reading of the facts. Perhaps it was because most other posters, coincidentally, agreed with your general argument?

And I think you may be mistaken in exactly what Mark is asserting if you think Debbie's raising the issue of coercion invalidates what he said. Mark, to my reading of his posts, has simply indicated that the court is likely to rule narrowly on the issue of a breach of contract using established case law. Debbie can raise any issue she wants (just as many of us here have done). That doesn't mean the court will be convinced of the argument's validity (much as we'd like it to be so).

Happy to engage on these points. Also happy to move on and sponge up the intelligent opinions of you and others here, from whom I've learned a great deal.

I am not picking a fight by any stretch. My wife correctly points out that in a battle of wits, I'm the guy holding a butter knife at a gun fight. Further, I suspect I've already taken more space on this than anyone else cares for. Given how much genuinely interesting information there is (and will be within the week) to dissect here, I apologize if my post came across as hijacking. It was not intended to be so.

Oh. And I am not now, nor have I ever been a Scientologist.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Look, I don't know Mark, I'm not an ex-scientologist, I mean no disrespect and, for all I know, Mark is a complete a-hole who regularly kicks puppies and reveals to little children that Santa is a myth. ...

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.


Mark A. Baker

 

[cyan]

Actually, I think our friend Magoo would describe a few recent comments above as indistinguishable from posts made by those seeking to sow unnecessary dissension in an otherwise focused thread.

This thread IMHO is focused rather well on a topic of great interest to many members, lurkers, members of the press, and general public.

Let's stay on topic!

TG1

Here, Here!

And apologies for the sideways flash into Off-Topic World. The scenery is so much better back here.

 

[Panda Termint]

Originally Posted by HelluvaHoax!
Being a Scientologist is never having to say you don't know everything.

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

... 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...

 

[SweetnessandLight]

...

Good lookin'! Nice strong teeth...I hope they will clamp down and not let go like pitbulls!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Actually, HH, I read the entire thread. And I thought your reaction to his assertions were accurately described as "hissy" in nature. Your response seemed defensive and annoyed. I'll be honest with you, HH. You came across as a bully. Just sayin'.

If that wasn't the case, I'm just curious why Mark go the brunt of your erudition and not everyone else who also made assertions based on their own reading of the facts. Perhaps it was because most other posters, coincidentally, agreed with your general argument?

And I think you may be mistaken in exactly what Mark is asserting if you think Debbie's raising the issue of coercion invalidates what he said. Mark, to my reading of his posts, has simply indicated that the court is likely to rule narrowly on the issue of a breach of contract using established case law. Debbie can raise any issue she wants (just as many of us here have done). That doesn't mean the court will be convinced of the argument's validity (much as we'd like it to be so).

Happy to engage on these points. Also happy to move on and sponge up the intelligent opinions of you and others here, from whom I've learned a great deal.

I am not picking a fight by any stretch. My wife correctly points out that in a battle of wits, I'm the guy holding a butter knife at a gun fight. Further, I suspect I've already taken more space on this than anyone else cares for. Given how much genuinely interesting information there is (and will be within the week) to dissect here, I apologize if my post came across as hijacking. It was not intended to be so.

Oh. And I am not now, nor have I ever been a Scientologist.

Oh, you want to chime in with Mark that I am having a hissy fit?

And I am a bully?

And I am defensive and annoyed?

And I am mistaken?

Welcome to ESMB. You are off to an interesting start. For someone who is new here you seem to have some pretty strong opinions about how bad I am.

If you are really not a Scientologist there is much to learn. Even more if you are a Scientologist. Enjoy the voyage.

 

[freethinker]

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?

 

[Free to shine]

This is all playing out so perfectly. The stupidity of Scientology and Scientologists is now about to be recorded for posterity. They claim to be able to erase the "Reactive Mind" of a person, yet they are utterly incapable of doing anything other than following the well-scripted playbook of reactive behavior themselves.

Abso-fucking-lutely hilarious.

As I said in a previous post, it is beautiful to see karma in action.

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

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

but they filed deliberately in Texas. Now how could that possibly be an advantage for them?

There is the famous Texas get out of jail free card: "they needed killing" I expect Davie will get Tom Cruise out to the shooting range for some practice shooting skeets - before he puts on his do-rag, fires up his super bike, holsters the sawed off 12 ga. pump full of double ought, throws some cold Lone Star the back pack and rides off to "Cook" up some trouble.

Mimsey

This is where I wish I was good at Photoshop - I'd paste Davie's head on the picture of the terminator on the Harley, with the pump 12 ga. shotgun - call him the Davinator!! LOL