Debbie Cook's Trial

Sindy

Crusader
This meme humbly tendered as a gif to mankind.


DSC03100-1.jpg


Children of Scientologists have a HUGE advantage in life.

postbaby-licking-floor.jpg


No wonder they disconnect from their parents when their parents leave Scientology.
Who wouldn't want to keep licking floors into eternity?​
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Davey,

You're right. Everyone really is out to get you. :nervous:

They want your foreskin (if it's still hanging around), your gonads, your dick, your taint and your ass.

That means Churchies, Exes, Indies, the media, the public, Debbie, law enforcement, and a growing number of lawyers.

After these last few satisfying days in San Antonio District Court, we're even more obsessed about sticking it to you.

It's going to happen.

Get ready.

Here it comes!

TG1

Oooh baby - you're talking no K-Y jelly either, right? :hysterical:
 

KissMyStats

Patron with Honors
OK, another rant (albeit brief) from me ... I seem to be into ranting lately.

I think you folks who are dismissive of Debbie and her analytical abilities concerning the Church of Scientology, the Scientology philosophy, L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige are effing silly.

You apparently expect her to believe exactly the same things you believe -- although she has likely not read what you've read, discussed what you've discussed, and she has certainly had significantly different experiences and a life than you've had.

You're all offended that she doesn't think L. Ron Hubbard was an espee? Why in hell would you (realistically) think she would at this point in her escape from the bubble of the Cult of $cientology?

You just heard her say she is learning for the first time about the rights and support available to her through the justice system, right?

You understand that she's very distracted by and struggling with her medical sitch, right?

You understand that until lately she's been very much inside the Church of Scientology bubble, right?

You understand that she's directing most of her communications to in-good-standing Scientologists from the only position of power she still has available to her -- as the once-respected position she held at Flag, right?

What part of G R A D I E N T do you not understand?

(That's only slightly a Scientology joke.)

In contrast to Debbie's evolution -- or instead, call it "learning from life" -- how long did it take for you to arrive atop your current mountain of omniscience?

If you're lucky, in five or ten years you'll look back on these years and realize what a stupid arse you were, too.

TG1

I agree. She got in when she was in her late teens I believe. Then she was solidly surrounded by it, moving up the ranks, 24/7 for almost 30 years, every moment of her life was dominated by LRH and everyone around her group-thinking the same thing. She's only lived the last four years as a normal adult. Can't imagine how many deer in the headlight moments she has had about living in the real world. It might take some time, it might never happen, but one day she's going to wake up all the way and go :duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh: I hope so for her sake. And if not, at least she'll have a big part in taking it down anyway. :happydance:
 

jenni with an eye

Silver Meritorious Patron
OK, another rant (albeit brief) from me ... I seem to be into ranting lately.

I think you folks who are dismissive of Debbie and her analytical abilities concerning the Church of Scientology, the Scientology philosophy, L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige are effing silly.

You apparently expect her to believe exactly the same things you believe -- although she has likely not read what you've read, discussed what you've discussed, and she has certainly had significantly different experiences and a life than you've had.

You're all offended that she doesn't think L. Ron Hubbard was an espee? Why in hell would you (realistically) think she would at this point in her escape from the bubble of the Cult of $cientology?

You just heard her say she is learning for the first time about the rights and support available to her through the justice system, right?

You understand that she's very distracted by and struggling with her medical sitch, right?

You understand that until lately she's been very much inside the Church of Scientology bubble, right?

You understand that she's directing most of her communications to in-good-standing Scientologists from the only position of power she still has available to her -- as the once-respected position she held at Flag, right?

What part of G R A D I E N T do you not understand?

(That's only slightly a Scientology joke.)

In contrast to Debbie's evolution -- or instead, call it "learning from life" -- how long did it take for you to arrive atop your current mountain of omniscience?

If you're lucky, in five or ten years you'll look back on these years and realize what a stupid arse you were, too.

TG1

:goodposting:

Well said TG1 :thumbsup: :itstrue:
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Yes!

And, the same parishioners (who read Debbie's letter and were sent to ethics to be handled) are assigned to do the KSW Course.

And, on that course those parishioners clay demo each of the 10 points of KSW and have big cogs and wins about how important it is to KSW.

And, those parishioners have big grins at graduation, giving their success story about how SPs (like Debbie) try to stop high toned beings (themselves) from Keeping Scientology Working.

And in their own mind they are quite satisfied knowing that if anyone ever tried to alter Ron's policies (like COB did) they would not be afraid to write it up (like Debbie did) because it would be suppressive (like Debbie is) to not confront it (like they themselves are).

In short, Scientologists have wins when they follow Ron's policies precisely that demand that they follow Ron's policies precisely by attacking people who follow Ron's policies precisely.

Long story short, the new Code of a Scilon is: I'm psychotic and so am I!" :hysterical:
 

Sindy

Crusader
OK, another rant (albeit brief) from me ... I seem to be into ranting lately.

I think you folks who are dismissive of Debbie and her analytical abilities concerning the Church of Scientology, the Scientology philosophy, L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige are effing silly.

You apparently expect her to believe exactly the same things you believe -- although she has likely not read what you've read, discussed what you've discussed, and she has certainly had significantly different experiences and a life than you've had.

You're all offended that she doesn't think L. Ron Hubbard was an espee? Why in hell would you (realistically) think she would at this point in her escape from the bubble of the Cult of $cientology?

You just heard her say she is learning for the first time about the rights and support available to her through the justice system, right?

You understand that she's very distracted by and struggling with her medical sitch, right?

You understand that until lately she's been very much inside the Church of Scientology bubble, right?

You understand that she's directing most of her communications to in-good-standing Scientologists from the only position of power she still has available to her -- as the once-respected position she held at Flag, right?

What part of G R A D I E N T do you not understand?

(That's only slightly a Scientology joke.)

In contrast to Debbie's evolution -- or instead, call it "learning from life" -- how long did it take for you to arrive atop your current mountain of omniscience?

If you're lucky, in five or ten years you'll look back on these years and realize what a stupid arse you were, too.

TG1

Listen, I like your rants! I agree with you and I, personally, don't expect Debbie to be anywhere in her gradient step out of the cult than where she is right now.

On the other hand, I am having a very difficult time understanding her perspective in regards the cover up of crimes and her receiving her quid pro quo for so doing.

It's hard to keep up with this thread and I will admit that I have not read the whole thing and so do not know if what I am about to write has already been posted but...

The only explanation I can come up with for what she said in the letter to Kathy True is that she had a strategy in saying what she did. She was talking to them from their reality.

Having said that, I have (with regards to the cult) gotten in trouble assuming and rationalizing and creating something in front of me that simply isn't there in hopes of being able to live with the many horrible "outpoints" I have seen.

She said what she said and without any spin or justification, I don't like it at all. I also suspect that I would feel the same about this sentiment 5 or 10 years from now.
 
... I think you folks who are dismissive of Debbie and her analytical abilities concerning the Church of Scientology, the Scientology philosophy, L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige are effing silly. ...

Apparently not all the true believers are loyal scientologists.


Mark A. Baker :coolwink:
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Come on. Quite being so theetie-wheatie. It is just a dumb meat body - it is temporary, YOU are an "eternal thetan". What are a few broken fingers or licking of floors to an eternal spiritual being who is "salvaging this sector"? :confused2:

Broken fingers? Licking floors? It is all just "considerations". Rise above such low-toned agreements! :happydance:

Knock off the woggy PTS-to-the-middle-class reasonableness! :yes:

(sarcasm)

You are so frakking right! In fact, I would like to test out your premise here by going after the Dwarf with a belt sander. If he was truly OT and dedicated as he appears to the True Believers, why, he would just laugh in the face of such a grinding attack!
:hysterical:
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
OK, another rant (albeit brief) from me ... I seem to be into ranting lately.

I think you folks who are dismissive of Debbie and her analytical abilities concerning the Church of Scientology, the Scientology philosophy, L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige are effing silly.

You apparently expect her to believe exactly the same things you believe -- although she has likely not read what you've read, discussed what you've discussed, and she has certainly had significantly different experiences and a life than you've had.

You're all offended that she doesn't think L. Ron Hubbard was an espee? Why in hell would you (realistically) think she would at this point in her escape from the bubble of the Cult of $cientology?

You just heard her say she is learning for the first time about the rights and support available to her through the justice system, right?

You understand that she's very distracted by and struggling with her medical sitch, right?

You understand that until lately she's been very much inside the Church of Scientology bubble, right?

You understand that she's directing most of her communications to in-good-standing Scientologists from the only position of power she still has available to her -- as the once-respected position she held at Flag, right?

What part of G R A D I E N T do you not understand?

(That's only slightly a Scientology joke.)

In contrast to Debbie's evolution -- or instead, call it "learning from life" -- how long did it take for you to arrive atop your current mountain of omniscience?

If you're lucky, in five or ten years you'll look back on these years and realize what a stupid arse you were, too.

TG1

Exactly! Bloody well stated. I think we must be on the same wavelength, I hadn't read your post and stated something similar on the other thread. :biggrin:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26236-Debbie-s-Interview&p=658969&viewfull=1#post658969
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
You're confusing criminal law with civil law. Also, it would be difficult to sue in civil court, because Debbie would need hard evidence to support her claims. The testimony of ex-Scilons would be disregarded as "hearsay" unless they had substantive proof to document their claims, i.e., videotape of the incidences.

The "transgressors" of the crimes against Debbie are active Scilons. They are trained to lie and preserve the cult agenda; lying "under penalty of perjury" in a wog court is meaningless to Scilons. Unless Debbie had videotape of the events proving her claims, her lawsuit would fail.


That is kind of overstated and silly, wouldn't you agree?

It is not based on the law nor on the historical precedence of juries finding for the plaintive who have successful fulfilled the burden of proof in civil trials, relying upon "preponderance of evidence" as the standard.

For example, in the criminal murder trial, OJ Simpson was found not-guilty against the standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"; but at the civil trial (for those same murders) he was found guilty and liable for a 30 million dollars plus judgment.

Both those trials relied upon circumstantial evidence, like 99.99 percent of all other criminal and civil trials where there is no surveillance or eyewitness videotape of the crime.
 
OK, another rant (albeit brief) from me ... I seem to be into ranting lately.

I think you folks who are dismissive of Debbie and her analytical abilities concerning the Church of Scientology, the Scientology philosophy, L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige are effing silly.

You apparently expect her to believe exactly the same things you believe -- although she has likely not read what you've read, discussed what you've discussed, and she has certainly had significantly different experiences and a life than you've had.

You're all offended that she doesn't think L. Ron Hubbard was an espee? Why in hell would you (realistically) think she would at this point in her escape from the bubble of the Cult of $cientology?

You just heard her say she is learning for the first time about the rights and support available to her through the justice system, right?

You understand that she's very distracted by and struggling with her medical sitch, right?

You understand that until lately she's been very much inside the Church of Scientology bubble, right?

You understand that she's directing most of her communications to in-good-standing Scientologists from the only position of power she still has available to her -- as the once-respected position she held at Flag, right?

What part of G R A D I E N T do you not understand?

(That's only slightly a Scientology joke.)

In contrast to Debbie's evolution -- or instead, call it "learning from life" -- how long did it take for you to arrive atop your current mountain of omniscience?

If you're lucky, in five or ten years you'll look back on these years and realize what a stupid arse you were, too.

TG1

I don't disagree with your post...but....
Are there any assumptions in the bolded part? That Debbie cook is on some "gradient" parallelling the "gradient" of deprogramming of exes?
Does attacking DM mean she will move on to critically analyzing Hubbards load of shit....like an OT process of ex-ism?
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
I don't disagree with your post...but....
Are there any assumptions in the bolded part? That Debbie cook is on some "gradient" parallelling the "gradient" of deprogramming of exes?
Does attacking DM mean she will move on to critically analyzing Hubbards load of shit....like an OT process of ex-ism?

You are right, it does not. One can only hope.
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
That is kind of overstated and silly, wouldn't you agree?

It is not based on the law nor on the historical precedence of juries finding for the plaintive who have successful fulfilled the burden of proof in civil trials, relying upon "preponderance of evidence" as the standard.

For example, in the criminal murder trial, OJ Simpson was found not-guilty against the standard of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"; but at the civil trial (for those same murders) he was found guilty and liable for a 30 million dollars plus judgment.

Both those trials relied upon circumstantial evidence, like 99.99 percent of all other criminal and civil trials where there is no surveillance or eyewitness videotape of the crime.

You're soooo wrong. 99.99% of civil trials are not won on speculation or circumstantial evidence. The weight of evidence is higher in a civil proceeding vs. a criminal trial where circumstantial evidence can carry alot of weight, especially in murder cases where no body has been recovered.

Using the O.J. trial is not a fair comparison, because it is well-known that alot of racial & environmental biases played a part in the "not guilty" verdict in the criminal trial. Several African-American jurors in that trial have since admitted that their jury decision was based on safety concerns... after the trial, they had to return to & live in communities that would have been unsafe for them if they had found O.J. guilty.

It was a different environment when the civil case was heard in Santa Monica, CA. Debbie's NDA case does not involve any of these factors.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
..


Originally Posted by degraded being
I don't disagree with your post...but....

Are there any assumptions in the bolded part? That Debbie cook is on some "gradient" parallelling the "gradient" of deprogramming of exes? Does attacking DM mean she will move on to critically analyzing Hubbards load of shit....like an OT process of ex-ism?


You are right, it does not. One can only hope.


There is tech available to help Debbie on her journey of discovery. . .


"It is a scientifically proven fact that an individual's
ScIQ goes up one point for each hour of Internet lurking."

- Hell Ron Hoaxard - Creation of Human (gul) Ablity




ScIQ -noun. (sigh-que) The intelligence quotient (IQ) of a Scientologist regarding the subject of Scientology. No known cases exist where a Scientologist's ScIQ has been charted higher than 110, because the moment it exceeds the average range (90-110) the person departs Scientology.
 

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
18 months ago I was looking for work and I had an interview with an employment agency. The girl who I spoke to was great and I was amazed at how much she CARED about my welfare - it was such a contrast to how I'd been treated in the past.

She rang me a few months later and said they may have temporary work for me but I was NOT to buckle to the employer's demands to stay back and meet deadlines if it IN ANY WAY meant I was fatigued - she was adamant about that.

I was gobsmacked - I'd never had an employer put my health and safety above "getting the product out" before.

A few months after that, I went back to driving buses and I had my boss tell me in no uncertain terms "The most important thing is you leave here in the morning and you come back in the afternoon.":omg:

His concern was genuine.

I've been continually stunned by how much folks outside the cult actually care for those they have a limited association with. I've been out several years now and come a long way further than Debbie has in that time. I've had a lot more time to decompress than she has (as have we all here.):yes:

She, like me (and Rathbun, Rinder etc.,) is doing all this in the public eye. Unless you've been there and done that, you have no understanding of it really. Sorry if that sounds pompous of me or whatever, but that's a fact of life as I see it. I've had great friends and ESMB, wwp etc. to help me along with recovery. And my hands are nowhere near as dirty as she knows hers are.

Give her space and time to sort it out and help her if and when she needs it. She'll be exhausted right now and needs support - doing what she's done in the last 6 weeks would have exhausted me and I'm about the same age as her and in a lot better shape physically. She'll have been living on the edge all this time and I doubt there are many here who really knows what it's like publicly taking on this toxic cult. It's easy to exhaust yourself planning and carrying out media, protests, etc. - the adrenaline you use up is surprising.

Endless speculation about motives, crimes, etc. may be entertaining but ultimately it doesn't bring this toxic cult to an end. Debbie's working on that in a very hazardous (for both her and DM:biggrin:) way. I don't care what she personally believes about Hubbard, his cult and his writings. I don't care if she thinks she's channelling him from Target 2 (altho' she hasn't said that.:coolwink:)

I'm backing her 100% because she's after real justice and just beginning to discover that there's a hell of a lot of us outside this cult with exactly the same purpose. She wants the slaves freed and so do I.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

TG1 - I loved your rant. I don't believe any of us here have the faintest idea where Debbie's coming from or where she's going with this.

But I sure want to be there for the ride.:happydance:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
You're soooo wrong. 99.99% of civil trials are not won on speculation or circumstantial evidence. The weight of evidence is higher in a civil proceeding vs. a criminal trial where circumstantial evidence can carry alot of weight, especially in murder cases where no body has been recovered.

Using the O.J. trial is not a fair comparison, because it is well-known that alot of racial & environmental biases played a part in the "not guilty" verdict in the criminal trial. Several African-American jurors in that trial have since admitted that their jury decision was based on safety concerns... after the trial, they had to return to & live in communities that would have been unsafe for them if they had found O.J. guilty.

It was a different environment when the civil case was heard in Santa Monica, CA. Debbie's NDA case does not involve any of these factors.



This is getting sillier by the moment.

I am not sure why you are lecturing me on things that I already know.

I am talking about your wild assertion that:

"Unless Debbie had videotape of the events proving her claims, her lawsuit would fail."

Because of my decades as an entrepreneur, I have (on behalf of my companies) spent vast sums of money and time litigating, when necessary, civil matters with other parties. You learn a lot when you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers and sit thru endless depositions and court hearings, et al.

Your statement is not based on real life. I am not sure where you get these theories that run counter to how the court system actually runs.

And when I give you a perfectly good example of how civil litigation can find for the plaintive without videotape (OJ), you have a load of excuses why that doesn't count.

Glad you don't represent any of my ventures! LOL

Stick with what you know about. It's not civil litigation.
 

cayce-case-um

Patron with Honors
From: Rolotomasii
".... I am a devote Catholic but felt no fear of speaking out against my church and my faith for the unspeakable crimes committed by the pedophile priests. In fact, when I questioned a Catholic priest I am friendly with, he welcomed the challenge and did not make excuses for the failings of the church ..."

I have no doubt of that, but! A few centuries ago, making the same challenge to Catholic authority, you might have been tortured, killed, burned at the stake, or excommunicated.

Today in the religion of Islam, in some countries if you disavow Islam you are an apostate and are similar to death.

In Jonestown with his brand of Christian-Socialism, the believers either drank or were forced to drink the Kool-Aid (some got injections or were shot) when the outside world was starting to threaten their cult existence.

Orthodox Jews in Israel, can get a little violent about religious liberals especially on the Sabbath -- and we all know what the Taliban did to women in Afghanistan for even showing an ankle.

I agree with Christopher Hitchens when he wrote "God is Not Great." Two of the three "great" monotheism have led to more cruelty and crime than will ever be recorded and the third one is ready to nuke Iran in the name of self-protection -- even Christian philosopher sanctioned the idea of "just war" however.

So I am underwhelmed by the current Catholic posture of being open to the discussion. Listen .... That silence you hear is the sound of one hand clapping.

There is something very, very wrong in the human pscyhe that leads true believers in any religion to commit crimes. Scientology is more the rule than the exception. Perhaps some day it will reinterpret Hubbard and reform.

But in the meantime, all of us should have danger flags going off for the welfare of friends and loved ones still trapped in the cult. What do these cults do again and again when faced with their extinction? I shudder to imagine the possible horrors and pray they will not happen.

Not only violence internally, but externally. That $ billion being held in reserve that Cook talks about -- how many nukes would that buy on the black market? CoS was no doubt disappointed that the end of the world through nuclear war did not come when they predicted a decade or more ago. Would they be willing to help things along? After all, they now have their "secret" bunker archives of all of Hubbard's "wisdom" on titanium etched plates, in nuclear-proof vaults, and so forth -- along with houses at each "secret" site (I know of three at least, and I think there is a fourth) the reincarnated Hubbard to return to.

This is a time of great danger for those trapped inside. What can we do to help them be safe? (Not DM -- that narcissistic little bastard of a psychopath needs to be put in an electronic prison in a mountain somewhere with a certain supreme "rulah."
 

cayce-case-um

Patron with Honors
PS I meant to write apostate ex-Muslims are subject (not similar) to death in some Muslim countries.

Also, remember that Scientologists may believe they are radiation-proof due to Hubbard's lunacy and nonsense related to physics and radiation (talk about someone who must have had M/Us!!!!).

With Scientologists being among the main and perhaps only survivors of nuclear war, and with Hubbard's "tech" protected in those vaults, would a nut like DM run the third or fourth dynamic equivalent of R2-45? How do we know that there are not truly secret vaults all over the world for Tom and DM and the ilk to survive in? How deep does their rabbit hold of madness go? Does it really stop with saluting the COB's dog, the RPF, and the RPF's RPF?
 

ClearEyed

Patron with Honors
I've been lurking on this forum, Why We Protest, and Marty's blog for quite some time. My time in the CoS was thankfully short, but nevertheless life changing. And not in a good way. I still have friends and acquaintances in the cult so I find watching it all unravel very interesting, not to mention enjoyable.

The reason why I finally decided to post a message is because I'm getting pretty tired of the equation put forth by the growing Independence Field which is: LRH=Good, DM=Bad. No no no no no no no...... I bet sometimes DM would love to tell these independents, "Where in the hell do you think I learned how to rule with an iron fist? Do you think I invented the RPF? Do you think I developed dead agenting, suing to harass, and fair game all on my own? No you idiots....I learned from the master!" Someone said on another thread that DM is the EP of Scientology. I think that's probably a true statement. In fact I'm sure of it.

I've watched how Marty runs his blog and I can see symptoms of a tyrant. Now he has the right to moderate his blog any way he chooses. But I've seen him rail at anyone who posts something that he doesn't deem appropriate and then ban them. And in each case I thought it was an overreaction. So I believe that if Marty, Mike R., and yes, even Debbie Cook ever came to any power....well, it wouldn't be long before you saw the same abusive traits that LRH had, and that DM has. Maybe not as extreme, but still abusive nonetheless. The "tech" calls for it.

I agree with your observations on the Marty blog. I don't know that he has a specific agenda, or is just acting out as a dysfunctional personality. Creepy all the same.

I couldn't tell you if Rinder and Marty agree on everything or not. Rinder joined the SO at such a young age, and from a Scientology family, that he didn't have the usual opportunities for mental and emotional development and to become his own man. So it may just be completely natural for him to glom onto Marty.

I'm pretty sure Debbie has a very specific agenda to be the white knight that rescues the kingdom and "rule with benevolence" but it's just my speculation.

Of the three, I think Debbie is the least creepy. I find it hard to believe that she believes what she says about the "kindness" of LRH and the church. If she does believe that, then she has an odd definition of kindness, and/or very selective powers of observation, which is cause for concern.

If any or all of them have it in mind to "take back" the church, I don't think it's gonna happen. The church is on the way down, and nothing will stop that. There are too many former Scientologists, public, staff and SO, who've been harmed and who've made it known. The church has become a virus that destroys it's host. I don't think anyone will be able to reverse it, no matter how benevolent and heroic they may seem. Anyway, I don't believe any of these 3 (or anyone else) would ever be as despotic or vile as DM, and outside of the structure of the SO, I don't believe any of them can do much damage.

Like many others here, I sympathize with Debbie for her sufferings, and wish her success in her law suit with the church. And at the same time, I think she's still too programmed into the patterns of the cult to be trusted. I hope that at some point she will grow beyond it.

And, BTW, I see you are a newbie, so welcome, and thanks for a good and thoughtful post!
 

ClearEyed

Patron with Honors
The bending back of Debbie's finger, or the ordered bending of her finger, to me, that needs a lot of repeating.

And the floor licking as punishment, also needs repeating.

Those two acts, ordered and implemented to whatever degree, at the Scientology "Vatican" (which has no visiting hours for Scientology tourists) need repeating!!

And repeating to "OTee" members!

They need to rise up the staff ranks and fix their movement, or hold onto their wallets, and stop making donations, minimally, like Debbie urged in her email.

Chuck, CYM.
 
Top