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

[Jquepublic]

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.

Good ferreting, Terril! Did you notice the request to explain the relationship between the plaintiff and Elliot Abelson in the docs Tony O Posted today?! I think you sniffed out a good one!

 

[Jquepublic]

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.

Marty's gone on the record numerous times about his own hand in the abuse that was/is going on in the cult. As far as I know he's never had charges brought against him by anyone he himself hit or otherwise mistreated, so I don't get the nearly constant demand from exes and anons that he come clean about his own part in it...since he HAS done, over and over in various ways and to various media outlets.

I think Marty is calling for docs because he can. He's an OL in the Indie field and capable of getting through to the people who have the dirt and can actually use it to see Miscavige behind bars.

 

[LA SCN]

Marty's gone on the record numerous times about his own hand in the abuse that was/is going on in the cult. As far as I know he's never had charges brought against him by anyone he himself hit or otherwise mistreated, so I don't get the nearly constant demand from exes and anons that he come clean about his own part in it...since he HAS done, over and over in various ways and to various media outlets.

I think Marty is calling for docs because he can. He's an OL in the Indie field and capable of getting through to the people who have the dirt and can actually use it to see Miscavige behind bars.

REALLY??

I guess I missed his going on the record detailing the cover-up of the Lisa McPherson murder and his part in it.

Also missed his full account of just how he and the Dwarfmeister REALLY got the IRS to grant the favorable tax status to the church - not the fantasy that was presented to the True Believers.

Oh - I forgot - it's in his book.

Remember, when you say 'clean', we're talking 'clean as a hounds' tooth', right?

Time, place, form and event, right?

Glib still don't fly...

And that Marty is an OL in the Indie field...well, that says a ton about Indies!

 

[Jquepublic]

REALLY??

I guess I missed his going on the record detailing the cover-up of the Lisa McPherson murder and his part in it.

Also missed his full account of just how he and the Dwarfmeister REALLY got the IRS to grant the favorable tax status to the church - not the fantasy that was presented to the True Believers.

Oh - I forgot - it's in his book.

Remember, when you say 'clean', we're talking 'clean as a hounds' tooth', right?

Time, place, form and event, right?

Glib still don't fly...

And that Marty is an OL in the Indie field...well, that says a ton about Indies!

Don't try to lump everything under one banner, it's psychotic in a case like this.

He's gone on the record over and over again about the physical abuses, detainment and torture tactics in active practice at Int base and trickling down the line, including his own part in it. THAT is relevant to this case, nothing else you mention is. Nobody has come forward to file charges against him. Why do you think that is?

He has said that he destroyed evidence in the LM case and has linked DM to that case. Again and again. What you should be ranting about is the lack of an official investigation by the proper authorities into the allegations he made.

As for the IRS, I honestly don't know much about that case nor do I particularly care, other than of course that I think it's a gross misassignment of tax exemption and I've spent many an hour composing letters detailing my opinions on the same.

Love or hate them, the Indies are a force in this scene and are actively working to take out the head of the church. I got nothing but love for them for that exact reason. Whether my love goes away after this case, I can't say. I'm a fickle chick. Hate 'em if you want, I don't really find myself needing to sell you on it.

 

[Terril park]

Good ferreting, Terril! Did you notice the request to explain the relationship between the plaintiff and Elliot Abelson in the docs Tony O Posted today?! I think you sniffed out a good one!

Was J Swift who sniffed it out. I read it about a week ago and it didn't occur to me then that it might be important for the various legal actiions. Took me hours to find it again as I couldn't recall where it was posted. Sent it to
Debbie. I expect if its useful they'll need an affidavit from Mr Morton. Its
possible DM's position can be proved by other means.

 

[LA SCN]

Good post from todays' Village Voice article:

DeckardCain

I hope Jeffrey knows the full extent of the Rathbun-Rinder credibility problem. They are very familiar with the Church's legal tactics (in particular with the Discovery process) for a reason. They were the engineers/drivers of those previous shady tactics and they may have been deposed themselves in previous litigation.

I am unfamiliar with Texas discovery rules, but if I were Cooks' attorney I would start digging for any applicable sworn statements of Rinder/Rathbun that will contradict their current sworn statements and/or illustrates a potential perjury cause of action.

Although the local hired guns may have (previous to this case) a decent reputation, expect that they will get in the mud and start slinging at EVERYONE involved. I hope Jeffrey reads up on Kenneth Moxon to see just how depraved Scientology's in-house counsel has become. I believe they would expect similar depravity from their outside counsel as well.

With Scientology allowed to bring in witnesses that meet a competency (to the matter being deposed) test, this opens the door for puppets. We've seen how the puppets act on this blog so expect most to perjure themselves in the depos.

I'm really concerned about the Rinder/Rathbun credibility problem. They both have an extensive history of lying for a living and it is guaranteed that they lied under oath at some point in their career. I hope Jeffrey is prepared for that.

This could blow up in our faces...sure hope it don't.

C of $ has been dodging legal bullets for decades and never really been held to account much less atone for its crimes.

 

[Jquepublic]

Good post from todays' Village Voice article:


This could blow up in our faces...sure hope it don't.

C of $ has been dodging legal bullets for decades and never really been held to account much less atone for its crimes.

This :

"I am unfamiliar with Texas discovery rules, but if I were Cooks' attorney I would start digging for any applicable sworn statements of Rinder/Rathbun that will contradict their current sworn statements and/or illustrates a potential perjury cause of action."

is a valid point. Good thing Jeffrey is checking the comments section!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

This :

"I am unfamiliar with Texas discovery rules, but if I were Cooks' attorney I would start digging for any applicable sworn statements of Rinder/Rathbun that will contradict their current sworn statements and/or illustrates a potential perjury cause of action."

is a valid point. Good thing Jeffrey is checking the comments section!

How'sa 'bout his admission of destruction of evidence in the McPherson case? Not perjury, but certainly impugns character.

More directly on point: anyone have a past legal issue with the church in which Rathbun was involved and committing perjury on behalf of his masters?


Mark A. Baker

 

[Jquepublic]

How'sa 'bout his admission of destruction of evidence in the McPherson case? Not perjury, but certainly impugns character.

More directly on point: anyone have a past legal issue with the church in which Rathbun was involved and committing perjury on behalf of his masters?


Mark A. Baker

No idea, Mark, but it sounds like a good area to research - hopefully they've done their own homework on that so it doesn't cause this case to wipe out.

Maybe they can restrict their (R&R) testimony to only those things that pertain to Debbie's trial and the specifics of abuse by DM. Trouble there is that Rinder has been recorded saying he was never touched by DM, etc., so I think his testimony might be easy to discredit. I think they're awre of that, though, don't you? If they thought their testimony alone was enough they wouldn't be calling for affidavits, IMO.

 

[Jquepublic]

Apparently they're engaged not as witnesses but advisors and will be present at Monday's depositions in that capacity. That takes the fire out of the "reliable witness" thing we've been discussing.

Interesting comment from John P on Marty's blog re: this

John P. | March 6, 2012 at 5:11 pm | Reply I read the filings carefully. I noticed that Mike and Marty will “be present” at the deposition scheduled to be taken next Monday. Not as witnesses, but presumably as advisers. I have to believe that the Church witness will have to think twice about lying with M&M on either side of Ray Jeffery, Debbie’s attorney. After every question, they can whisper to him, “he’s lying and here’s what to ask next to catch him at it,” or “he’s telling the truth.”

That’s a major positive development in litigation against the Corporate Scientology, since lawyers in the past probably have not had the benefit of “self-propelled e-meters” to call bullshit on the Church’s witnesses in real time. They may not have had the experience to spot lies as they happened. Since it’s hard to go back and re-depose a witness, they then lose lots of chances to attack the credibility of the Church of Scientology, which hurts the odds of success. But now for the first time, real-time lie detection. That should be a game-changer.

I’m thinking you guys can really mess with the witness by randomly whispering stuff in Mr. Jeffery’s ear even when the witness is telling the complete and accurate truth — he’ll be going crazy wondering what lie you have caught him at even when you’re just talking about who you think will win the World Series this year.

Even funnier: a court filing last week published in the Village Voice included a demand that the court forbid Marty and Mike from serving as witnesses in the case. That’s a ridiculous demand that Miscavige undoubtedly ordered the lawyers to include as part of his rabid campaign to deny the Cooks any sort of defense. I remember thinking at the time that it was strange since Mike & Marty were out before the Cooks left in 2007, so they wouldn’t have any direct knowledge of the events at issue in the case. So now it appears that DM got his wish: M&M won’t be witnesses after all. They will be advisors! That’s a way more dangerous role for them to be in. Remember that old saying about, “be careful what you wish for — you might just get it”?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... 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. ...

That's hyperbole worthy of Hubbard.


Mark A. Baker

 

[LA SCN]

How'sa 'bout his admission of destruction of evidence in the McPherson case? Not perjury, but certainly impugns character.

More directly on point: anyone have a past legal issue with the church in which Rathbun was involved and committing perjury on behalf of his masters?


Mark A. Baker

If so, send it directly to Jeffrey...

 

[LA SCN]

Apparently they're engaged not as witnesses but advisors and will be present at Monday's depositions in that capacity. That takes the fire out of the "reliable witness" thing we've been discussing.

Interesting comment from John P on Marty's blog re: this

Good read - John P. makes good posts on this.

And boy would I love to see the scilon witness squirming with missed withhold phenomena.

"I’m thinking you guys can really mess with the witness by randomly whispering stuff in Mr. Jeffery’s ear even when the witness is telling the complete and accurate truth — he’ll be going crazy wondering what lie you have caught him at even when you’re just talking about who you think will win the World Series this year."

And keeping M & M far from being witnesses is the only pro-survival move.

 

[Rene Descartes]

I am sure that Rathbun and Rinder have told Jeffrey all the dirty "secrets". They worked in legal and know that lawyers don't like surprises.

How sure am I?

50.05%

Rd00

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I am sure that Rathbun and Rinder have told Jeffrey all the dirty "secrets". They worked in legal and know that lawyers don't like surprises.

How sure am I?

50.05%

Rd00

Your point is a valid one but I doubt that MRs are telling all the dirty secrets. There is a lot they appear not to want revealed about the church. Part of that prior experience with legal has no doubt also trained them in exactly what not to tell the attorneys.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Rene Descartes]

Your point is a valid one but I doubt that MRs are telling all the dirty secrets. There is a lot they appear not to want revealed about the church. Part of that prior experience with legal has no doubt also trained them in exactly what not to tell the attorneys.


Mark A. Baker

Mark,

Are you saying that they would withhold something at the risk of losing the case for Debbie and the one chance, this brief moment in eternity, to take down the Pope on a Rope?

Rd00

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Mark,

Are you saying that they would withhold something at the risk of losing the case for Debbie and the one chance, this brief moment in eternity, to take down the Pope on a Rope?

Rd00

I'm saying that any information they are likely to provide this attorney will relate to the specifics of this case. Debbie's case is targeted on fairly recent events and is apparently aimed at targeting Miscavige's responsibility for discredible and possibly criminal actions. It's not a 'core dump' of all things bad about the church.

The MRs know a great deal more about the dirty business of the church than is directly relevant to Debbie's action. I for one do not believe they are willing to reveal all of what they do know about the church, not even to this attorney.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Infinite]

..


Is it too much to expect that the M&M Show is providing its services pro bono?

 

[NoName]

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?

Earlier today, Tony Ortega posted his comms with Jeffrey. Jeffrey said some of his legal strategy is comming from VV commenters.

I am protective of my identity and I've never been to Flag so I dunno about Lisa. But if you do know about Debbie being there and want Jeffrey to see it, get on the VV and/or contact him directly. I would say contact him directly and keep contactinguntil you get acks.

 

[Smurf]

I wonder if M&M would accept affidavits from Gerry Armstrong... for example?

Anyone that in allergic to bullshit and need to avoid M & M, can send their affidavits directly to Debbie's attorney at [email protected] or fax: (830) 438-4958.