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

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
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.

The DBZ has initiated some strict guidelines prohibiting "doxing". Miranda probably removed it because the $$ spent on legal fees is not for public consumption. The cult has already ordered Debbie's attorney to retain all documents pertaining to the fundraising incurred for Deb's defense fund.

Marty, who started the fund, told the cult to fuck off, that he would not release the name of the donors & how much money each contributed to the fund. As far back as I can remember, the cult paid particular attention to who was contributing money to people in cases adverse to the cult, so they could track down & harass those contributors.

At my hearing with the City Attorney last year, when Kirstie Alley & her Scilon friends tried to have me charged with harassment for filming the Grand Opening of her failed endeavor, Organic Liaison, Moxon demanded, and threatened to get a court order, to know how much I was paying my attorney to defend me. I told him if he got on his knees and blew me, I'd tell him.

I don't ever recall a judge demanding a defendant in a civil case adverse to Scientology, to surrender their list of contributors.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
At my hearing with the City Attorney last year, when Kirstie Alley & her Scilon friends tried to have me charged with harassment for filming the Grand Opening of her failed endeavor, Organic Liaison, Moxon demanded, and threatened to get a court order, to know how much I was paying my attorney to defend me. I told him if he got on his knees and blew me, I'd tell him.

 

TheRealNoUser

Patron with Honors
If Debbie really wants to prove that Scientology held her against her will and intimidated her, all she has to do is to reveal the truth of what she knows about Lisa McPherson.

Lisa was held against her will for 17 days until she died. Debbie Cook knows exactly what went on that led to Lisa's death. She could prove that Scientology has a history of holding people against their will, and that Lisa's story made her fearful for her own life. This would open up the Lisa story again and allow the truth to finally come out in a court of law. (Even though we all know what that truth is already)

Does Debbie Cook really have the personal integrity that she purports to have? Or is this appeal for help really just another selfish Scientologist out to save their own skin, and gather even more free money from others?
 

RogerB

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




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

Then if all that's true . . .and I don't have the time nor interest to get into your kind of nit-picking shit . . . then R&R should make it plain what they are trying to accomplish and not put out a misleading dictate that has lead to one person, at least as shown above, to decline to contribute because she/he "does not match all the points" of the R&R prescription.

I am pointing out that Miscavage is currently not part of the proceedings . . . no matter how much we wish he were . . . .

If R&R want to embroil him in it, then they would be wiser to declare that strategy by announcing "here is our opportunity" so let's use it.

But instead they are silly enough to put it as part of an emphasis that ought or must be included in submitted depositions . . . . that is dull because it tends to KO valid submissions.

But here you are again intellectualizing about what you "suspect" . . . why can't you just stick to the simple facts of the issue at hand?

My statement that all who have evidence to back up Debbie's case should submit it regardless of whether or not it implicates Miscavage directly, contrary to R&R's verbiage, is ignored by you . . . . well I suppose that is one way of ignoring proper orders of importance :duh:

R
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Then if all that's true . . .and I don't have the time nor interest to get into your kind of nit-picking shit . . . then R&R should make it plain what they are trying to accomplish and not put out a misleading dictate that has lead to one person, at least as shown above, to decline to contribute because she/he "does not match all the points" of the R&R prescription.

I am pointing out that Miscavage is currently not part of the proceedings . . . no matter how much we wish he were . . . .

If R&R want to embroil him in it, then they would be wiser to declare that strategy by announcing "here is our opportunity" so let's use it.

But instead they are silly enough to put it as part of an emphasis that ought or must be included in submitted depositions . . . . that is dull because it tends to KO valid submissions.

But here you are again intellectualizing about what you "suspect" . . . why can't you just stick to the simple facts of the issue at hand?

My statement that all who have evidence to back up Debbie's case should submit it regardless of whether or not it implicates Miscavage directly, contrary to R&R's verbiage, is ignored by you . . . . well I suppose that is one way of ignoring proper orders of importance :duh:

R

Regardless of details or speculation, I have had a gut feeling for a while now that Marty is going to somehow screw up this case for Debbie. Hopefully not in a critical way, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he creates a setback that Debbie's lawyer will have to overcome. That's the last thing her lawyer will need. He's got enough on his plate.

After Marty came out with his call for people to step forward and write testimonials, my gut feeling got stronger. Especially when I read that he wanted these people to send their testimonials to either himself or Rinder. I just see potential trouble with this. A footbullet in the making.

Now I may be off base and DC's attorney either asked MR to do this, or he approved it after MR offered to help. We'll see...
 
Last edited:

Terril park

Sponsor
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 . . .

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


There is this:-

----------------------------
J. Swift | March 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Reply

In a 2008 article on Andrew Morton’s book on Tom Cruise, a question was asked if TC was second in command of the Church. Elliot Abelson replied:

“Mr Abelson denied the actor was ‘second in command’.

“He is a parishioner, a well respected parishioner, but that’s what he is. The only person who runs the Church and makes policy decisions is David Miscavige.”

Ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...rld-Number-Two-Scientology.html#ixzz1oBMxQfI4

Elliot Abelson has already admitted that DM is in charge. Any affidavits that document duress are buttressed by Abelson’s own remarks.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
There is this:-

----------------------------
J. Swift | March 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Reply

In a 2008 article on Andrew Morton’s book on Tom Cruise, a question was asked if TC was second in command of the Church. Elliot Abelson replied:

“Mr Abelson denied the actor was ‘second in command’.

“He is a parishioner, a well respected parishioner, but that’s what he is. The only person who runs the Church and makes policy decisions is David Miscavige.”

Ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...rld-Number-Two-Scientology.html#ixzz1oBMxQfI4

Elliot Abelson has already admitted that DM is in charge. Any affidavits that document duress are buttressed by Abelson’s own remarks.

That is a great quote...potentially damaging. Forward it to Marty, er, I mean Debbie's attorney.
 
Then if all that's true . . .and I don't have the time nor interest to get into your kind of nit-picking shit . . .

So? Don't. Just because my mind works that way is no reason you have to respond in kind. I find it useful. Not everyone shares that view.


...then R&R should make it plain what they are trying to accomplish and not put out a misleading dictate that has lead to one person, at least as shown above, to decline to contribute because she/he "does not match all the points" of the R&R prescription. ...

I doubt there will be much plain speaking from Rathbun & Associates, at least not of the 'truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth' variety. It doesn't seem to be their forte. They appear to prefer expurgated versions.


... But here you are again intellectualizing about what you "suspect" . . . why can't you just stick to the simple facts of the issue at hand?

Well, absent transcripts of any strategy planning sessions involving the lawyers, rathbun & cook, facts on hand such as they are are remarkably scant. As you have indicated what facts there are indicate that they wish to corral Miscavige specifically into this case. You already pointed out that raises the question of 'why' since for the simple purpose of making Cook's case it appears to be a bit of a side issue. That question invites speculation based on what is known. My remarks were clearly labeled as speculation on that point.

As you indicate what matters for her case is the fact of coercion by church representatives. Direct implication of Miscavige as having been personally involved is not essential to achieving that purpose.


... My statement that all who have evidence to back up Debbie's case should submit it regardless of whether or not it implicates Miscavage directly, contrary to R&R's verbiage, is ignored by you . ...

Hardly ignored. I simply had nothing to add to your remark. I regarded it as quite apt. A failure to comment on my part need not denote disagreement.

My prior remarks in response to yours serve only as one hypothetical interpretation of events. Nothing more. Time & circumstance may chance to illuminate more.


Mark A. Baker
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
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 . . .

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


Agreed. But as you well know, there is often the case proper and ALSO le grande subtext of jockeying for position in the likelihood of a settlement prior to trial.

The leverage in favor of Debbie's case vs COS is two-fold:

* proof of coercion (which does involve Miscavige directly and indirectly)

* the terror factor (which would compel Miscavige to do anything to avoid getting pulled into discovery or testifying under oath in a trial, where cross-examination and impeachment documents/witnesses are forthcoming.)​

A safe assumption is that the obligatory motion for Summary Judgment will be dismissed for obvious reasons. What then remains is the path leading to trial and the opening of Pandoras "Case" so to speak.

Ultimately, history teaches that the downfall of despots and demons is often playing their own strengths against them, in Jujitsu fashion. Miscavige's billion dollar bullying has inexorably led him into this ill-fated showdown. Whether or not Debbie/Marty orchestrated it intentionally in order to bait COB into an ambush is not clear.

But either way, I would expect Miscavige cut bait and dock his boat at the nearest port and safely walk ashore. How he will try to save face in doing so should be quite fascinating.
 
Last edited:

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
There is this:-

----------------------------
J. Swift | March 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Reply

In a 2008 article on Andrew Morton’s book on Tom Cruise, a question was asked if TC was second in command of the Church. Elliot Abelson replied:

“Mr Abelson denied the actor was ‘second in command’.

“He is a parishioner, a well respected parishioner, but that’s what he is. The only person who runs the Church and makes policy decisions is David Miscavige.”

Ref: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...rld-Number-Two-Scientology.html#ixzz1oBMxQfI4

Elliot Abelson has already admitted that DM is in charge. Any affidavits that document duress are buttressed by Abelson’s own remarks.

After seeing this I would insane cackle for 5 minutes except I value my gonads and will have to suppress the insane cackle till tomorrow as my wife is sound asleep and to wake her with an insane cackle would be the same as a self inflicted gonad bullet upon both mine own 'nads.

Rd00
 

Boomima

Patron with Honors
So, Marty who is on record as admitting that he was physically abusive to staff and Sea Org while he was in the CoS is gathering proof of abuse to give to Debbie's lawyers? But this proof is only to be about DM?

So, if someone had testimony that say...Marty abused them but said that DM told him to would he be interested in that?

Aside from a pathological desire to be the center of attention while proving that he's better than anyone with the initials DM, is there a good reason why Marty is the one gathering these statements?

Indie Scientologists are more confusing that the other kind. I think that I will go examine Ron Org instead.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
--snipped--

Indie Scientologists are more confusing that the other kind.

A quizzical anomaly, ain't it?

I find it hard to plot them on the map, exactly.

To be (do/have) KSW or not, that is the question.

Perhaps, I need to solve a Zen Koan to understand Indies:

"What is the sound of one foot(bullet) flapping?"
 

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
Agreed. But as you well know, there is often the case proper and ALSO le grande subtext of jockeying for position in the likelihood of a settlement prior to trial.

The leverage in favor of Debbie's case vs COS is two-fold:

* proof of coercion (which does involve Miscavige directly and indirectly)

* the terror factor (which would compel Miscavige to do anything to avoid getting pulled into discovery or testifying under oath in a trial, where cross-examination and impeachment documents/witnesses are forthcoming.)​

A safe assumption is that the obligatory motion for Summary Judgment will be dismissed for obvious reasons. What then remains is the path leading to trial and the opening of Pandoras "Case" so to speak.

Ultimately, history teaches that the downfall of despots and demons is often playing their own strengths against them, in Jujitsu fashion. Miscavige's billion dollar bullying has inexorably led him into this ill-fated showdown. Whether or not Debbie/Marty orchestrated it intentionally in order to bait COB into an ambush is not clear.

But either way, I would expect Miscavige cut bait and dock his boat at the nearest port and safely walk ashore. How he will try to save face in doing so should be quite fascinating.

You are presuming there is some sanity in what Pope Dave does.:omg:

I don't believe that the events of Debbie's trial support such a supposition.:coolwink:

Debbie's lawyer AND Rathbun publicly say what Debbie's gonna talk about prior to the hearing, yet Pope Dave goes ahead. Then pulls the pin at the end of the first day bawwwwwing about how Debbie has hijacked His courtcase against her.:duh:

Now an appeal for a Summary Judgement that is pretty likely to fail AND bring up even more evidence against that that Pope Dave doesn't want to see the light of day PLUS it's given Rathbun the chance to ask for anyone abused by DM to come forward and sign an affidavit about it which will just enlarge the scope of the case against DM:happydance:

None of this is the mark of a person possessed with any hinderance of sanity in Their quest for Planetary Domination ... er Clearing.:no:

Dave doing the sane thing and cutting and running? :roflmao:

Hoaxie, this is one of the best jests you've ever pulled. :hysterical:

Dave will be thinking about that just around the time He's being bent over and having His orange jumpsuit removed by several large inmates - and He'll be trying to find someone else to blame for Him not taking that option.:dieslaughing:

Hey Dave :shark: - get used to the feeling.
 
... Now an appeal for a Summary Judgement that is pretty likely to fail ...

I wouldn't make too much of the church having filed a Request for Summary Judgement, Scoot. They are pretty routine tactically whether an attorney considers it likely the judge will grant or not. It's regarded as a low risk, quick, quiet way to seek a 'win'. There's no real penalty if its not granted and relatively cheap to file.

Not much down side, reasonable prospect for success. It would be more surprising if the church had withheld from filing it.


Mark A. Baker
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
I wouldn't make too much of the church having filed a Request for Summary Judgement, Scoot. They are pretty routine tactically whether an attorney considers it likely the judge will grant or not. It's regarded as a low risk, quick, quiet way to seek a 'win'. There's no real penalty if its not granted and relatively cheap to file.

Not much down side, reasonable prospect for success. It would be more surprising if the church had withheld from filing it.


Mark A. Baker

Let's compare two scenarios with a cost to beenfit analysis

Scenario 1. File a Summary Judgement. Cost? estimate 33 pages of paper at $800 per hour. Estimate 10 hours to prepare such statement. Cost to file? estimate $400 Court costs for sumary judgement hearing? $500. Lawyer fees for Summary Jugment Hearing? $2,000.Expected probability of win? Comservative Estimate 1 out of a trillion.

Scenario 2. Buy a Powerball ticket. Cost $2, no estimate, true cost. Expected probability of win. approx. 1 in 80 million.

Expected loss

Scenario 1 $ 10,899.99999999999999999999999

Scenario 2 $1.999999999999

Ahh the old Master Card punchline

Priceless

I'm not goign to say they should not have filed but if the Pope on a Rope is hoping for something goodto come out of it he better be making plans for the next step.

If I could find the right sports scenario to use as an analogy I would write it but thsi is difficult because sports involves some elements of luck that a courtroom probably can't locate.

The only way a sports analogy might stand up is if we enter the word "payoff" into the foray.

Rd00
 
Last edited:

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
To be (do/have) KSW or not, that is the question.

To KSW, somebody will first have to GSW... and nobody ever has got Scientology working. Unless it's meant to be nothing more than a pyramid scam, that is. In that case, it's still working... sort of.
 

Jump

Operating teatime
...
Funny movie parody from wwp...

double.jpg
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
To KSW, somebody will first have to GSW... and nobody ever has got Scientology working. Unless it's meant to be nothing more than a pyramid scam, that is. In that case, it's still working... sort of.

That is so perfect.

This is the granddaddy of all "assumptive closes".

Nobody ever thinks to ask when it is going to start working because Hubbard drills it into people 24/7 that they must keep it working. LOL

That is a stage illusion, personified, with misdirection and the audience thinking that real magic has happened.

Then the audience applauds Hubbard for defrauding them and taking their money.

Finally the audience leaves the theater, laughing & congratulating each other about how they are the top 1% of all the people in the world who were able enough to find that magician and witness a miracle.

Nice trick.
 
Top