ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

How Debbie Cook Exposed Scientology and Got Away Scot-Free

Discussion in 'Debbie Cook' started by Free to shine, Apr 30, 2012.

  1. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    Continued at above link
  2. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    I personaly think that the paragraph that denies relief, paragraph four, prevents either side from suing each other ever again and that is why no specific relief was stated, because it is based on future attempts at relief IMO.

    There are private agreements that don't involve the courts at all and an agreemnet like that could have been made.

    To say that debbie had no leverage over the church is presumptuous as is to say that she testified to everything that she could have on February 9th. I would bet that Debbie has a few file drawers full of imformation in her time with the church that would be even more damaging than that that she testified to. I am certain that the hole goes deeper than the Hole.

    As bad as the SP Hole sounds, the church has bigger crimes than that a plenty.
  3. LA SCN

    LA SCN NOT drinking the kool-aid

    I'll stick with my posting here:

    I read Tonys' article a couple days ago with attorney Scott Pilutiks' speculation on the settlement.

    I disagree and the opinion of my legal expert disagrees.

    Two reasons for the church to settle right away are:

    1) The testimony from Debbie was a PR nightmare just when the church was promoting itself and its wonderful approach to Human Rights via the newly opened Inglewood Ideal Org combined with its new alliance with Rev. Farrakhans' Nation of Islam. The church is angling for government funding for new members to do services. Bad press could kill that dead.

    2) No fucking way that any churchies take the stand, especially the Midget. With Debbie and M&M aiding Jeffrey with his questioning, there would have been damaging to the church truth or provable perjury. This Texas court of law is not Anderson Cooper and the Stepford Wives. Notice the church settled before producing a single person for deposition. And remember Debbie had counter-sued that the NDA was signed under duress - the church wanted no part of that fight and the probable witness list testifying for Debbies' cause.

    The Church wanted this to go away NOW NOW NOW. Their age old tactic of burying the opposition in filings and requests never got to come into play.

    They failed to follow LRH policy and ruin Debbie Cook utterly.

    The court Scientology knew it was getting beat to shite in is the Court of Public Opinion. Which loss negatively affects their future income.

    A friend of mine, OT5 and still in the church before the Cook flap, is now out and everyone he knows that was on lines is now out.

    Those who think the church brought pressure on Debbie to fold with their typical dirty tricks are forgetting that any comm she would have had with a church terminal would have been with Jeffrey present. I'm sure he knows blackmail when he sees it and blackmail is illegal.

    And for those who say all the damning testimony had been already been given, bollocks! The church did not even want to give voice to the potential witness parade in Debbies' countersuit.

    So the church was applying older policy to this: Cut your losses, let your profits run.

    So, I'm staying with this analysis and I'm betting their losses include a chunk of change for Debbie Cook but that agreement is required to be undisclosed per the terms of the Permanent Injunction.
  4. BunnySkull

    BunnySkull Silver Meritorious Patron

    As I said in the other DC thread, it will be pretty easy to tell if a pay-off was part of the settlement as most people seem to think. (Including myself) Buying a new house, car, travel, move to new locale, new business, etc...most of which will be on the public record (buyings homes and properties, biz liscenses , etc..)will pretty much confirm whether or not they got a big settlement. It's not hard to tell when people suddenly come into a big pile of money, especially if they weren't well-off to start with. I'm sure over the next 12 months there will be some pretty big indicators if they cash settlement or not.
  5. GoNuclear

    GoNuclear Gold Meritorious Patron

    The Baumgartens could easily conceal a settlement by forming a holding company with a separate taxpayer ID number ... for instance, an LLC. Some states are more favorable, I have seen New Mexico advertised as the most favorable, with the holder of the LLC being hidden from public view. An LLC is a flow-thru for income tax liability, but, if the LLC is strictly used for holding property, no income need be generated.

  6. GoNuclear

    GoNuclear Gold Meritorious Patron

    One last point ... the expression "Scot free." That expression goes back prior to the Civil War, with the Dred Scot case. The Supreme Court under Justice Taney had him returned to his masters after he escaped and stayed at large for a few years. I suspect that the expression "Scot Free" at the time meant that you only got away temporarily, and the commonly accepted usage today is really incorrect.

  7. FoTi

    FoTi Crusader

    I would hope that she's written a book, that upon, "something happening to her", would be anonymously shipped to a publisher for immediate release. If she's gone, the cult can't do anything to her any more, for getting her message out. Might make a kind of nice insurance policy for her longevity. And if she just died of natural causes someday, she still would have the last word and would be able to haunt DM from her grave. :biggrin:
  8. BunnySkull

    BunnySkull Silver Meritorious Patron

    Obviously, they can hide the money, but I'm betting if they got a huge windfall it will be easy to see the usual upgrades in lifestyle that money buys.

    Could they be disciplined and live frugally with a large settlement? Sure. But since Debbie, when she was still Capt Cook, ran out and bought a new car the same week she regged M. Pia Gardina for a cool mil, I wouldn't bet on it.
  9. LA SCN

    LA SCN NOT drinking the kool-aid

    It will be interesting to see what reports come out down the road on all this.

    One thing I figure is Debbie now has a source of advice in running her affairs that she can trust - Jeffrey.
  10. BardoThodol

    BardoThodol Silver Meritorious Patron

    Debbie didn't get away Scot-free. She's got some bad karma to work out here. Betraying so many of those who supported her. There were a lot of people who trusted her to carry on a fight for truth.

    She took the money and ran. Bad boojum. She's picked up another demon.

    Think it's easy carrying around all the crap she's accumulated? All the participation in destroying the life savings of so many people "getting them up the bridge?"

    And then taking that same pattern into her trial? Get a money stream going for a "good cause" and then...

    Sure, she did that which benefitted her most. She took the easy path out. And, perhaps she never claimed that she would do otherwise. Perhaps others projected possibilities and outcomes on her that she neither intended nor advertised.

    But, she had to know they were out there and that those were the reasons she was getting the support. She expressed that thanks on Marty's blog.

    She's got to live with her character and behavior. It's not the kind of character and behavior I find admirable. And, if she were honest with herself, I doubt she would find it so either.

    As they say, "she's got to live with herself."

    I personally wouldn't want to live as a "self" like that.
  11. elwood

    elwood Patron with Honors

    Let's get a couple of things straight. I don't support Scientology and I don't agree with Debbie or her beliefs. However, I did have a problem with the way the CoS reacted to her e-mail. I was a contributor to her legal defense and I do not feel "betrayed" at all. What the hell were you people expecting? The contributions were for a legal defense to keep Debbie from being hammered by the cult - not for her to go on the offensive. If a settlement has been reached and the cult has backed off, we got what we were contributing money for and Debbie got what she wanted - to be left alone.
  12. BardoThodol

    BardoThodol Silver Meritorious Patron

    "What the hell were you people expecting?" You people? Hmmm. I didn't realize I had commented by committee.

    Just as there were various and numerous reasons individuals stepped up to contribute to Debbie's defense, there are numerous and various responses to the process and outcome.

    I'm glad you got what you wanted from contributing. It's always good to get value for your contributions. Value to you or value to others. Makes the world better.

    The Debbie Cook situation had the potential to render an enormous value to more than it finally did. Certainly, her situation stirred media interest. Certainly, several people left the church because of her. Certainly, the church was embarrassed once again by her testimony. All valuable.

    However, her testimony revealed nothing new. Nothing. Zero.

    As CO of FSO she was privy to a lot of information that could have come forth if she were in a position to talk about the church and her experiences. Taking a settlement that includes validation of her nondisclosure agreement prevents that.

    The longer her battle played out, the more the CofS would have suffered. Her case had the potential to accelerate the demise of the CofS.

    So, what about the well being of those who will continue to be victimized by the cult during those months or years NOT LOST by the acceleration of demise? Does the well being of Debbie Cook trump the well being of all those others?

    It's wonderful that Debbie is now free, and likely financial set.

    But, what about all those who have been ruined by the church? What about all those still inside the church, forfeiting their life savings, foregoing any security in retirement by liquidating their retirement funds, tapping out all their credit cards and mortgages--all to secure a lie? All the financial ruin that has occurred and is still occurring?

    Not to mention the families that are torn apart through disconnection. What about all that?

    Debbie was a key player in perpetuating that mess. She helped milk all those who went to flag for services. Milk them of every drop of money they could borrow and scrounge. Milk them of their future and their children's--wiping out any college funds.

    Tell me she didn't push those reges to get money, money, and more money to raise Flag's stats.

    However, this is the point, she has all that on her conscience. If she has a conscience. I don't know her, so what do I know.

    Think about something you did that almost lead to disaster, such as almost running over your child in the driveway. Your heart races. The incident is embedded. Years later, you still think about it. How close you came to doing something horrible.

    You think you could walk away from helping ruin so many lives Scot-free? With nary a twinge of conscience?

    A normal person would be haunted for life. Until he or she helped rectify the harm. Completely.

    If she doesn't have a conscience, then those who helped her helped... Well, what kind of person doesn't have a conscience?

    So, there are all these people sitting outside the church who didn't really contribute to the mess, who spent their good will trying to keep the mess at bay, who definitely are not responsible for the mess--but are still trying to clean it up. These individuals are trying to stop the CofS from ruining lives.

    Debbie, a key player in making the mess, would theoretically have key responsibilities in cleaning it up. Sort of like Bernie Madoff.

    If she has a conscience.

    And if there are readers who dislike what I write, please have the moral backbone to point out specifically what and why. I really am amenable to changing my viewpoints. We can all learn from one another.
  13. tikk

    tikk Patron with Honors

    I'm the attorney quoted in the Voice article and I responded to similar sentiment on a similar thread, which response of mine can be seen starting here. It's a long post so I won't paste it here. But I will paste my take on the idea that there could even be two agreements:

    The idea that Scientology would structure two deals, one which restricts Cook's speech and lets her keep the $100k, and another which just gives her money is asinine because if Cook violates, Scientology would have NO LEGAL MECHANISM BY WHICH TO GET ITS MONEY BACK. Additionally, they'd effectively be handing Cook leverage in the form of money to finance a future defense against breach. To reiterate, because the governing legal document in case of a breach states that Cook was given no additional money, the implication of everyone's Monday morning quarterbacking is that Scientology gave millions of dollars away that it has no way of retrieving if Cook breaches. This would contradict everything that is known about the effectiveness of Scientology's litigation machine, as it practically amounts to legal malpractice.
  14. LA SCN

    LA SCN NOT drinking the kool-aid

    Glad to know who you are - explains your viewpoint.

    But what if you're wrong?

    Not only every argument, but especially every court case has two sides, both attorneys advocating spiritedly for their view of the case.
  15. tikk

    tikk Patron with Honors

    That's your response? That multiple possibilities exist? Sure I might be wrong, but I've done a decent job explaining why the odds strongly favor my being right. And I'm hardly arguing here as an advocate--if Cook received a secret payment that Scientology could never possibly recover upon her breach, then good for her--so I don't understand how your "two sides to every case" comparison makes any sense. Why not instead advance a plausible theory that explains away the points I raised?
  16. LA SCN

    LA SCN NOT drinking the kool-aid

    THAT ^^^^^^^^ would be the best evidence yet that the cash to Cook theory is true!

    Absolutely believe that Davey ran this case.

    Miscavige is legendary for micro-managerial malpractice: Lisa McPherson C/S, Battlefield Earth, for a couple of examples.
  17. Adam7986

    Adam7986 Declared SP

    I think the reason the church wanted to avoid litigation was for no other reason than the fact that it faced the invalidation of their NDAs. Debbie Cook need only to prove that participation in the cult results in an altered state of mind that presents duress where it may or may not seem to exist to someone in a relatively ”normal” state of mind. I don't think that would been difficult to do.

    I think also she may have had the ability to prove that the payment she received from the church as compensation for signing the NDA should be an obligatory payment on the church's part to help their members return to regular life without the church's support, similar to alimony I suppose. This would nullify the church's ability to coerce others into signing NDAs.

    On the other hand who knows how many bad things Debbie herself participated in that the church would have exposed. She may have exacted the same punishment on those beneath her that those at the top carried out on her.

    There are a lot of turns this trial could have taken. I think both sides thought it easier to call it quits.
  18. tikk

    tikk Patron with Honors

    No it wouldn't. If you feel I need to explain why, please first review a logical fallacy chart and be prepared to check a few items off.

    Regardless of whether Miscavige was micro-managing the case, there never emerged any reason to pay Cook any more than she'd already been paid for reasons I've exhaustively laid out, none of which you or anyone else has refuted with anything more than magical thinking.
  19. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    I'm sure your viewpoint is a very valid legal viewpoint. However we are dealing with the CO$ which is a perculiar organisation. The OSA bureau are set up to handle first with intel, then PR, then legal. If all those fail they handle by finance, the 4th OSA bureau.

    Marty Rathbun thinks that Debbie was given a payout. He is in a position
    to know CO$ strategy intimately and may indeed have knowledge of such a payout even.
  20. tikk

    tikk Patron with Honors

    If the church wanted to "avoid litigation" then why did they bring the suit in the first place? Their NDA was no nearer or farther from being invalidated than when they first filed suit to the time the matter was settled.

    And it "wouldn't be difficult" to show that "belonging to a cult" is somehow prima facie evidence of duress? Really? I'd enjoy being enlightened further on this point because I am unaware of any such case or law that would support your assertion. Also, putting aside for the moment that "cult" has no legal term of art meaning in the United States, do really you think the court would presume Scientology was a "cult" for the purpose of finding on a duress defense?