Debbie's lawyer looking for help from Dave's victims

I'll bet he would prefer that M&M vet the people turning in affidavits. With all the OSA sock puppets & trolls & the wacko camera hat squirrel busters trying their best to trip him up, they could be performing a valuable service - without them, he wouldn't know the wheat from the chaff.

Mimsey
 

Lone Star

Crusader
OK, but again I don't like M&M inserting themselves on this line as a via between potential witnesses and the lawyer. Until they come clean with the rest of us who have come to our senses about the church, they are not to be trusted, IMO.

It could potentially be a detriment to Debbie's case for the MRs to have the testimonials filtered through them. I bet a strong letter from G. Spencer will be sent to Ray Jeffries tomorrow. It's okay to announce this on the MR blog, but having the write ups sent to the MRs before DC's attorney may not be.
 

GoNuclear

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, I wonder the relationship here. How much power or influence is DEBBIE's lawyer giving Marty & the gang? The idea of M&M being the litmus test for who's testimony is relevant or not is a bit disturbing. Want to bet anyone with bad things to say about Scientology itself won't be needed?

I don't like the idea of people trusting M&M to this degree.

What you say may be true ... but not particularly relevant. Bad things about Scientology itself would only touch tangentially on the case. Furthermore, courts are loathe to adjudicate on matters of religious doctrine and rightfully so. And as far as trusting M&M, yes, they have an agenda of their own, whatever that may be, that much is true ... HOWEVER ... there is also a strong commonality of interest here. There are two possible M&M agendas ... either take over the Cof$, or shatter it into nice bite-sized pieces that they can then gain control over at least a significant market share. Either way that means bringing down DM and exposing the abuses. Their agenda may differ with those of us on ESMB in that they may be true believers in the HubTurd and his drek oops I meant tech whereas those of us on here generally seek to expose HubTurd drek for what it is ... but again, that is simply not all that relevant to the proceedings here in COF$ vs. DEBBIE COOK.

One last point ... notice that is COF$ vs DEBBIE COOK, not Cof$ vs. Debbie Cook. DEBBIE COOK is an express trust, created vis the birth registration process of Debbie Cook, where the govt. is the trustee and Debbie Cook was beneficiary at time of the creation of the trust and now a contributing beneficiary. A beneficiary of a trust has no say in how the trust is run, that is up to the trustee. If a beneficiary is a contributing beneficiary, there are duties but still no say in the running or operation of the trust. That is the status that most of us have today. HOWEVER ... there is remedy. Debbie Cook could, at any time, walk away from her status as contributing beneficiary of DEBBIE COOK, or, since she has the ultimate right ... her status, in addition to being contributing beneficiary, is also that of holder in due course, and there is no way of stopping her from becoming a secured party creditor over DEBBIE COOK by filing a lien against that entity. Either way, the Cof$ would be effectively stalemated if not checkmated. Why? Because Cof$ is a corporate entity and operates in the arena of legal fictions only.

Now for those of you who are thoroughly confused, I will break it down to the simple by way of an analogy. You live in the real world of flesh and blood men and women. If someone punches you in the mouth it would hurt for real. If you punched someone else in the mouth it would hurt them for real. But have you ever been punched in the mouth by a cartoon character? Have you ever succeeded in punching a cartoon character in the mouth? Is it even possible in any way shape or form for a live, flesh and blood man, woman, or child to interact with cartoon characters? The answer is generally speaking, that would be impossible. HOWEVER ... there is a technology for animating a cartoon character via computer animation based upon the real time movements of a live actor.

The live actor would don a special suit with all manner of sensors built in that are hooked up to a powerful enough computer. In that instance, the cartoon character animated by the live actor can interact in the cartoon world with other cartoon characters. Now what if the live actor became convinced that he really WAS the cartoon character and forgot that he was a live actor apart from the cartoon world? Not a good situation, obviously, but, when it comes to the legal arena, that is exactly the state of affairs that most people are in today.

There was a time, way back when, when the common law reigned supreme here in the USA, and that was pre Civil War. If there was a dispute to be settled, it was between flesh and blood men and women and there was real substance that it was settled with ... gold and silver coin. These days, virtually everything is corporate. A corporation is the legal equivalent of a cartoon character, and cartoon characters and real live people can't interact directly. The answer was to create and assign cartoon character avatars, if you will, to flesh and blood people. This avatar, created for the purpose of interacting in the cartoon world of legal fiction corporate entities like the Cof$, is the trust entity I spoke of above. The trust is under the control of the trustee, which is govt. until such time that the beneficiary exercises his or her right as holder in due course, meaning the party that holds the ultimate trump card. This avatar is known as a "person" and if you go thru all the various codes and legaleze, you will see the phraseology of "a person who" or "any person who" etc. The system is designed to operate on the basis of you confusing yourself with your avatar and mistaking the cartoon world for the real world. Once you completely understand the distinction, it becomes possible to exercise your rights and put the system to your advantage. There are two videos to look at ... first is the Menard video, available on youtube for free, Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception which is to be seen first, and then the Winston Shrout segment of Zeitgeist also viewable for free on the web where Shrout covers taking control over the entity via lien action.

Bringing it back to the original topic of COF$ vs DEBBIE COOK, when M&M were drumming up support for Debbie, I attempted to post this material in a concise, to the point manner on the Marty blog ... IT WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO BE POSTED. Most usually, my posts fly on there just fine, but not that one. Because their agenda involves beating the shit out of the Cof$ in a publically viewed arena as opposed to simply binding the beast down with its own chains and quietly walking away from it and going about one's own business. But back to MY point ... the arena where this fight is happening is an arena of cartoon characters and a flesh and blood actor can simply cease animating his avatar at any time or can gain control over the avatar in such fashion as to render the efforts of other cartoon character avatars null and void. Debbie and Wayne need to be made aware of this option. I can understand a perceived need to beat the shit out of the Cof$ in the arena I spoke of, but, if all else fails, the route that I am speaking of here is a great option. It would prevent Cof$ from collecting a dime or shutting her up.

Pete
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
I'll bet he would prefer that M&M vet the people turning in affidavits. With all the OSA sock puppets & trolls & the wacko camera hat squirrel busters trying their best to trip him up, they could be performing a valuable service - without them, he wouldn't know the wheat from the chaff.

Mimsey

From the get go Marty has placed himself between Debbie and indies / exes and vested himself with the authority to vet her comm particles, inbound and outbound. Indeed Debbie originally sent THE EMAIL to only 300 or so folks inside the church - it was Marty and posse that forwarded it on and made it viral.

Without seeing any issue from Debbie or her lawyer officially anointing Marty as her spokeshole and tactical advisor it just seems illogical on the face of it, strangely reminiscent of the scenario when the dwarf sat on the comm lines of LuRcH.

He has placed himself in a convenient position to co-opt and damage control any testimony that might derail his plan for future glory.

Additionally it just irks the hell out of me to have seen M&M in the conference room video with Debbie and her lawyer after THE VICTORY just smiling ear to ear and all happy. Them sitting with all those undisclosed crimes of magnitude against just those victims of abuse that they now want to come forward to help Debbies case.

A sticky wicket indeed. On the stand under cross examination:

church lawyer: OK, Joe, you say you were abused by the church, abusive treatment ordered by Miscavige?

joe: Yes, that's right.

church lawyer: who actually carried out those actions?

joe: well.....it was Marty and Mike...

(courtroom groans - major footbullet)

In the quest for justice, Debbie, Marty, Mike - you can't have it both ways.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
They are arguing that because Debbie did not battle George Spencer, and effectively cross examine herself on the stand on 9 February, and testify about the duress she has continued to experience since leaving Flag in October 2007, there was no such continuing duress.

Wait a second, just wait a gosh darn minute!

This is so stupid that the even there isn't enough facepalms to go around the offices of all the Church lawyers.

Wait wait wait.

1. So they are admitting that she did face duress? whah? huh?

2. If she was facing duress prior to signing then she would have had to face duress after the signing? Gads, just the fact that friends disconnected from her after the email does more than just imply that there was duress. And for sure there are records of emails and texts and cliquee twitters that can confirm this. Whether or not this had to do with the Pope is irrelavent.

3. And she didn't cross exaine herself? Duh!! And they claim this after they pulled the plug on the case before there it was finished? Now that is just plain ol' stupid.

Oy vey!

Rd00
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
The church is asking the court to declare the church the winners of the lawsuit based on the facts that they have presented to the court. To grant a Summary Judgment, the court must decide that there is no triable issue of fact. That means that no evidence that Debbie can present conflicts with the facts that the church says are established and prove its case for breach of contract.

Three words.

KSW

Okay that is three letters.

HelluvaHoax was stating a few weeks ago.

As a Scientologist Debbie Cooks is required to apply KSW.

More words

Introductory to Scientology Ethics.

There are a list of crimes in the later pages of the books.

I don't remember them all but I do know that there is something in there perhaps stated in other words about failure to reports gross misapplications of tech and policy.

Anotehr one that HH was pointing out - Ethics Gradients.

Jeffrey just has to bring up the relevant policy to show that there is conflict in what the Church is saying vs the reasons for Debbis Cook writing that email.

Crap now I have to go check the original NDA and see if there is anything in there about her having to maintain the integrity of the policy of the Church.

This case is starting to suck. Why? Because it is bringing out more bull by the Church and their desires to maintain control and power over anybody that has anything to do with them.

I'm starting to get pissed off.

Do I sound it? :angry:

Rd00
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
Wait a second, just wait a gosh darn minute!

This is so stupid that the even there isn't enough facepalms to go around the offices of all the Church lawyers.

Wait wait wait.

1. So they are admitting that she did face duress? whah? huh?

2. If she was facing duress prior to signing then she would have had to face duress after the signing? Gads, just the fact that friends disconnected from her after the email does more than just imply that there was duress. And for sure there are records of emails and texts and cliquee twitters that can confirm this. Whether or not this had to do with the Pope is irrelavent.

3. And she didn't cross exaine herself? Duh!! And they claim this after they pulled the plug on the case before there it was finished? Now that is just plain ol' stupid.

Oy vey!

Rd00

Actually, they've admitted it in a round about way. They're stating that any claims of duress are not a factor in this "simple contract violation".

They're just trying to avoid the trial by jury and the further shitstorm of bad press for Miscavige/CoS that is inevitable if this goes to trial.
 
Mike and Marty then list 6 catagories which you can see at his site.


You may be able to help - I fit under one or two of the 1-6 but there is insufficent proof connecting of the dots back to Dave for me to be of any help. But I thought I'd get the word out if any want to pitch in.

Mimsey

pitch in

other testimony might well connect the dots
 

Ladybird

Silver Meritorious Patron
pitch in

other testimony might well connect the dots

Send your testimony and your donations directly to Debbie and her lawyers, NOT to Marty. Marty Rathbun was David Miscaviges #1 thug in charge of legal and other dirty tricks for over 20 years.

Those 6 things (with points a,b and c or more) Marty posted made it seem like your testimony was only of value if you personally witnessed or experienced ALL of them.

Marty is not Debbie Cooks lawyer or legal representative. I suspect Marty wants to vet the testimony many of us could provide and cut himself out of the criminal activity.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
I suspect Marty wants to vet the testimony many of us could provide and cut himself out of the criminal activity.

hmmmm.....

good point.

Rinder, too.

I wish we could get some information from Debbie or her lawyer about what THEY want people to do. It is kind of weird with Marty talking for her.
 

RogerB

Crusader
The R&R request for Depositions states in part:

Recognize, the inclusion of David Miscavige is important in distinguishing between the hundreds with similar experience and the few dozen with experiences sufficiently parallel with Debbie and Wayne’s experience to be admissible, relevant witnesses. “The boss”, as you may have heard Church of Scientology International counsel Eliot Abelson refer to Miscavige in Debbie’s signing video, is front and center in this case. Irrespective of Abelson’s now-world-famous admission the “church” is doing everything in its power to keep the chief perp out of this dispute, without Miscavige, of course, there is no dispute. Without Miscavige there is no 31 December 2011 e-mail by Debbie, there is no need to speak out, there is no cause to shudder into silence, there is no need for redress for aggravated assault and battery, torture, imprisonment, and the entire array of serial human rights abuses Miscavige perpetrates to this day.

Pardon me, but I don't think I am dull to be questioning R&R's highlighting the "importance" of focusing on citing Miscavage's doings in the requested testimony . . .

What's that got to do with the Case of Debbie Vs Cof$ or CofS Vs Debbie? It's a small side issue in the case only in the context that when Debbie mentioned Miscavage as part of the conspiracy of assault on her, the Church attorney raised the issue that he's not "proven" to be part of this case (the Co$ suit against Debbie).

There is some degree of introduced arbitrary here on R&R's insistence your deposition cite and involve Miscavage. WTF for?

All Debbie has to prove or provide a preponderance of evidence of is that fact that the Cof$ and its staffers and hired hands have committed criminal acts, abused her and others, violated civil rights, and generally operated on the basis of use of abuse and duress against it's own peoples as well as perceived enemies to subdue people.

There is no need "to be sure to include Miscavage" or for your deposition "only to be valid or important if it cites Miscavage."

What's with the need to target Miscavage R&R?

I want Debbie to win big time and hands down. Nice if she brings Miscavage down in the process . . . and the Cof$ as well.

But her case is not against Miscavage. :no: And the case against her
is not Miscavage against her.

So I say, all who have evident that demonstrates Debbie's accusations against the Cof$ are factual, that corroborate her accusations against the Cof$ and bolster her defense on the issues of the invalidity of basis of the charges brought against her, should speak up and give a deposition.

Miscavage is ancillary to the main parade of these two cases.

Based on what we know, poor R&R have such dirty hands they would be rather poor witnesses themselves in this parade . . . Though it may well be true that the Cof$ can't discredit them without utterly destroying themselves in the process . . . . .

But I don't see any valid reason for R&R introducing the stipulation that submitted evidence has to include or cite Miscavage. WTF is that all about?

RogerB
 

KissMyStats

Patron with Honors
I'll bet he would prefer that M&M vet the people turning in affidavits. With all the OSA sock puppets & trolls & the wacko camera hat squirrel busters trying their best to trip him up, they could be performing a valuable service - without them, he wouldn't know the wheat from the chaff.

Mimsey

Good point. Also I figure that Mr. Jeffrey will have a face to face interview with anyone whose story he wants to use for testifying in court and he can continue the chaffing of the wheat process then to decide if he wants to put them on the stand. So even if M&M mess with the story, I have confidence (I'm hanging on to it anyway) that Mr. Jeffrey will get all of the truth firsthand from the witness.
 
The R&R request for Depositions states in part:



Pardon me, but I don't think I am dull to be questioning R&R's highlighting the "importance" of focusing on citing Miscavage's doings in the requested testimony . ...

Not in the least. I strongly suspect much of what is happening behind the scenes is dependent on this.


... .

What's that got to do with the Case of Debbie Vs Cof$ or CofS Vs Debbie? It's a small side issue in the case only in the context that when Debbie mentioned Miscavage as part of the conspiracy of assault on her, the Church attorney raised the issue that he's not "proven" to be part of this case (the Co$ suit against Debbie).

...

What's with the need to target Miscavage R&R? ...

IANAL but I strongly suspect that this is the primary point, not only for the two MRs but for Cook as well.

What I THINK is happening is that IF Cook can win her case, or even be shown as likely to win in such a fashion the church will be willing to negotiate, AND IF it can be well established that Miscavige himself bears responsibility for any transgressions, loss of reputation on behalf of the church, and financial losses to the church resulting from the former THEN a case exists for elimination of David Miscavige as operating head of the church.

Now, IANAL, but I believe that which is being put to test by the plaintiffs in this matter is that as a Corporate Officer Miscavige has certain legal requirements & responsibilities towards the reputation and standing of the corporation he heads. By putting him up front and center accused of abuse and damaging the reputation of the institution he heads I see the plaintiffs as attempting to force the hand of the board of directors to 'throw david under the bus'.

I'm not sure on the specific legal principles involved here but I believe there are provisions under corporate law which require the board of directors to act to remove directors or executives who are deemed to be damaging their respective institutions. In suitable instances a failure to act on the part of a board could be used to hold the entire board accountable and subject to removal themselves through appropriate government intervention. The thing about corporate institutions, whether religious or not, is that they are bound to adhere to the laws regulating corporate behavior or else face involuntarily dissolution under the law. :biggrin:

It would require an attorney familiar with matters of corporate law to address these questions as to whether this would be a feasible line of attack against Miscavige under the requirements of corporate rules & regulations, but this is what I suspect is happening: a scenario is being created in the Cook countersuit where the board of directors either willingly negotiates a settlement with Cook involving the removal of Miscavige from his controlling position in the church, or alternately they are forced by legal circumstance to do so as a result of a finding of his personal culpability.

For such an approach to work, given the degree of effective internal control that Miscavige has been able to maintain, requires that Miscavige be held directly & personally responsible for the church's difficulties and with no prospect of a 'plausible deniability' which could be used to justify his retention by the board. A sharing of blame would not be as likely to force removal as there would be doubt and effective 'wriggle room' for maneuvering. Hence, the importance of directly implicating Miscavige in the events.

Rathbun would certainly consider such a result as a definitive 'win' against Miscavige, as would those others such as Cook & Company for whom Miscavige is seen as the 'only problem' with the church of scientology.


Mark A. Baker
 
Yes, I wonder the relationship here. How much power or influence is DEBBIE's lawyer giving Marty & the gang? The idea of M&M being the litmus test for who's testimony is relevant or not is a bit disturbing. Want to bet anyone with bad things to say about Scientology itself won't be needed?

I don't like the idea of people trusting M&M to this degree.

You are right; M&M should not be trusted. I think there is something fishy going on. A few weeks ago I saw a post on divided-by-zero where someone was saying that Debbie Cook said she spent 50K in lawyer's fees. That post has been taken down and I was wondering why.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
..
"If you step up, you will be protected."

I wonder what this means and whether M&M have the authority to make this assertion.


Fascinating.

This is pure Scientology being applied, exactly per Hubbard's "scripture".

Promise people absolutely anything in order to get what you want.

Later when the promise is broken, blame others and demand that the victims write up their O/W's and order them to take responsibility* and make up the damage for allowing this betrayal to happen.



* typically in the form of amends projects, re-doing expensive bridge actions or straight donations.
 
I think it is a valid point that this game is being played on many levels, such as the instant battle in Debbie's counter suit, and the take-down games that M&M may be instigating, and the restoration of the church and perhaps even a grab at all of it's accumulated wealth. Int has always been afraid of a coup (gee, similar overts of your own, Dave?) stemming from M&M's camp for several years and this may be a key battle.

But will the church survive a take-down of Miscavige? Showing him to the public of Scientology as a petty crim, who altered tech, raped the public for donos etc., and you have a staggering loss of faith.

So, I guess this begs the question - do you want to play along with them? Help them? Sit this one out? It could go either way - the church caves, or the church survives. Remember Mondo, (Blazing Saddles) "Mondo pawn in game of life"? You can easily get Ray's email address and phone # in a hot 5 min of Googling if you want to deal with him direct. It's your call.

Mimsey
 
Top