What's new

Jan Eastgate - presumed innocent

ClamSource

Patron with Honors
People don't realise the dangerous territory that Anon is straying into with people bandying around accusations.

Jan Eastgate is entitled to the presumption of innocence. She'll get her day in court. Please please please can people avoid prejudging the outcome.

Fail at this could result in heavy libel suits landing from both Eastgate and the cult. It could also see the charges dropped.
 

ClamSource

Patron with Honors
People don't realise the dangerous territory that Anon is straying into with people bandying around accusations.

Jan Eastgate is entitled to the presumption of innocence. She'll get her day in court. Please please please can people avoid prejudging the outcome.

Fail at this could result in heavy libel suits landing from both Eastgate and the cult. It could also see the charges dropped.
 

apocalyptic

Patron with Honors
People don't realise the dangerous territory that Anon is straying into with people bandying around accusations.

Really? Have you contacted the Australian prosecutors about their publicly airing their own accusations?

Jan Eastgate is entitled to the presumption of innocence. She'll get her day in court. Please please please can people avoid prejudging the outcome.

No. Save your plea's.

Jan Eastgate is not entitled to the presumption of innocence by anyone other than those individuals involved in receiving and reviewing the evidence against her for the purpose of rendering a legally binding verdict.

Do you imagine the Australian prosecutors of Jan Eastgate are required to presume she is innocent of the charges they are prosecuting her for?

Do you imagine free people all over the world are not entitled to share the opinions and beliefs of the prosecutors, that Jan Eastgate is guilty?

Fail at this could result in heavy libel suits landing from both Eastgate and the cult. It could also see the charges dropped.

Jesus Christ. Have you the slightest clue of what freedom of speech means? It means we can state that 'we believe' Jan Eastgate is guilty of obstruction of Justice. Get it? We believe she is a criminal. Get it? We believe she fucked with the well being and sanity of an innocent little girl. Get it?

And we believe you are a fucking nitwit. Get it?

So sue us.

Can you document one single case anywhere at anytime where a criminal defendant in a court of law successfully sued anyone for libel, for stating they agreed with the opinions and beliefs of the prosecutors of the case (i.e the defendant was guilty of the crimes that were charged?)

Thought not.

..It could also see the charges dropped.

Right. Speaking out against Eastgate in public, sharing the views of the prosecutors, and calling her all sorts of really bad names, could cause the Australian Courts to throw out the case against her.

You 'are' a nitwit. Of epic magnitude.

Apocalypic
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
People don't realise the dangerous territory that Anon is straying into with people bandying around accusations.

Jan Eastgate is entitled to the presumption of innocence. She'll get her day in court. Please please please can people avoid prejudging the outcome.

Fail at this could result in heavy libel suits landing from both Eastgate and the cult. It could also see the charges dropped.

Lol!
 

Lohan2008

Gold Meritorious Patron
CS, the court in Sydney just had a hearing to see if the Federal Police had sufficent evidence to procecute Jan Eastgate for 'Perversion of Justice' and she FAILed.
:police:

It is now up to a court of 12 to determine (aug 15) if she is to be convicted of the "charge"
(hey, a scilon pun!).

Carmel has testified to what has happened to the Fed's and others have documented the abuse. This is a fair representation of the FACTS. If you can corrabulate any evidence of her innocence please present it.
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
People don't realise the dangerous territory that Anon is straying into with people bandying around accusations.

Jan Eastgate is entitled to the presumption of innocence. She'll get her day in court. Please please please can people avoid prejudging the outcome.

Fail at this could result in heavy libel suits landing from both Eastgate and the cult. It could also see the charges dropped.

And have you told ‘Anon’ this?

Good luck in advance – you will need it. :biggrin:

You are right in that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence before any (potential) trial. But people like to discuss things and I hardly think that a court in Australia is going to be influenced by what is said here and on other ‘critical’ sites. However important we like to think we are, we are but a drop in the ocean of chit chat that is the Interweb. I can’t see that anything said here is going to have any effect – one way or another.

And let's not forget that it was free discussion that lead to the discovery of the evidence and corroboration by other witnesses in the first place. Only the cult would want people not to discuss the (alleged :coolwink: ) crimes by it’s members.

There was a huge amount of talk about Rex Fowler but this didn’t have any influence or threaten to derail the trial, did it?

As for libel suits, why would the cult sue? Have they been accused? As for Eastgate, I don’t think that even she is that stupid. Anyone remotely connected with Scientology has no credibility with the general public – which is what any jury would be made up of. Can you imagine the awkward questions she would be asked under oath? Imagine the dirty washing that would be displayed for the whole world to see and be recorded for posterity. They might threaten and bluster, but they can’t afford to go to court.

But having said that, it is always sensible to be careful what you say about actual people. Expressing an opinion is one thing, but if you make accusations of a criminal nature, you had better be prepared to back it up with facts. This goes for any situation, not just here on ESMB or WWP or wherever.

Some people and organization (not just the cult) are extremely vindictive and will do almost anything to silence critics. Be sure of what you say.

Axiom142
 

Karen#1

Gold Meritorious Patron
I do not Presume the Church of Scientology innocent in covering up

the molestation and statutory rape of my son Alexander Jentzsch when he was 12 years old in Clearwater, having sex with a 40 year old, who is currently an OSA volunteer Marie Warren.


STATEMENT FROM KIRSI OJAMO
(OSA INT STAFF at the time of the rape)
I was a member of the Sea Organization from August 1989 till August 2007. It was when I worked in the Office of Special Affairs Flag Land Base, that I learned about the rape of Alexander Jentzsch, then a 12 or 13 years son of Karen De La Carriere and Heber Jentzsch. I started working in OSA in January 1997 and it was during that year when I learned about the rape through my then co-worker Annie Mora, who had been assigned to keep an eye on Alexander from the point of time he was received at the Flag Land Base.
The rape incident involved a female FSO Dept 5 staff Marie Warren, seducing Alex to have sex with her in one of the crew berthing apartments. Once this incident became known by Annie Mora she was executing the immediate handling which included making sure the knowledge of the rape isn´t spreading not only inside the church but to the outside; it would have been devastating to the image of the church to have this crime become general knowledge. Another action was to transfer Alexander and Marie out of Florida to California to help cover it up from the Authorities. Needless to say Alexander´s rape was a huge flap and would be the kind of incident OSA staff would automatically deal with, hence my knowledge of it.
Sincerely,
Kirsi Ojamo

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello Marty and Karen,


This is Mat Pesch, husband of Amy Scobee. I have some additional information on the transfer of Alexander from Clearwater to L.A. Karen mentioned on your blog the slave labor of Alexander Jentzsch when he cleaned the Fort Harrison toilets and lobby with no schooling when he was 11 and 12 years old for well over a year.


While Alexander was a minor living at the QI (Quality Inn - where the S.O. children lived) he was the victim of what is termed statutory rape, legally. A woman named Marie Warren who was about 40 years old and who worked as a Dept 5 FSO Letter Registrar took Alexander, still a child and had sexual intercourse in the bathroom of her QI dorm while her 2 roommates were asleep. His mother Karen was in Los Angeles. Heber was up lines at Int base. This was 1996.

The authorities were not informed and both parties were immediately gotten out of the state of Florida.

Mary was sent to the RPF in Los Angeles and was subsequently found unfit for the Sea Org and dismissed. Alexander was transferred to California to work for the church there.

The reason I know this is because I was the Treasury Secretary of the Flag Service Org (FSO) at the time. As such, I was briefed on the situation and asked to immediately provide the funding needed for the airfare to get Heber's son out of town because a rape has occurred. He has to quickly be gotten out of the jurisdiction where the felony (statutory rape) occurred. I talked to Tom DeVocht yesterday (who was the CO CMO CW at that time) and he also recalls the incident and corroborates this story.

The OSA drill for this sort of thing goes something like this:

1. Convince both parties that they are responsible and grossly out ethics, they have put the church at risk and they need to withhold what happened. "For the great good...cover up anything that might not be good "PR" for the Church"

2. Get both parties immediately out of the state, in this case Florida.

3. Follow up to keep the "flap" secret and/or make it go away.

Marie Warren went to the PAC RPF and after things settled down she was Fitness Boarded out of the Sea Org.

The above gives additional data on why Alexander was moved to L.A.. There are many reasons why
OSA is currently showing Alexander such "love" per Karen's post on Marty's web site: He is the son of Heber, he experienced child labor law violations, he experienced the "abortion drill" and he experienced the "OSA drill" for children that are sexually abused. All of these abuses have recently been being exposed by Marty, Mike and others.

Because he was the son of the President, Church of Scientology International and had just been raped by a 40 year old, I was asked to come up with the money for plane fare IMMEDIATELY to get him out of Florida, and out of the jurisdiction of the crime.

The above also might be an additional aspect to Heber and Alexander being kept apart for 6 years.

Mat Pesch
 

Terril park

Sponsor
And have you told ‘Anon’ this?

Good luck in advance – you will need it. :biggrin:

You are right in that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence before any (potential) trial. But people like to discuss things and I hardly think that a court in Australia is going to be influenced by what is said here and on other ‘critical’ sites. However important we like to think we are, we are but a drop in the ocean of chit chat that is the Interweb. I can’t see that anything said here is going to have any effect – one way or another.

And let's not forget that it was free discussion that lead to the discovery of the evidence and corroboration by other witnesses in the first place. Only the cult would want people not to discuss the (alleged :coolwink: ) crimes by it’s members.

There was a huge amount of talk about Rex Fowler but this didn’t have any influence or threaten to derail the trial, did it?

As for libel suits, why would the cult sue? Have they been accused? As for Eastgate, I don’t think that even she is that stupid. Anyone remotely connected with Scientology has no credibility with the general public – which is what any jury would be made up of. Can you imagine the awkward questions she would be asked under oath? Imagine the dirty washing that would be displayed for the whole world to see and be recorded for posterity. They might threaten and bluster, but they can’t afford to go to court.

But having said that, it is always sensible to be careful what you say about actual people. Expressing an opinion is one thing, but if you make accusations of a criminal nature, you had better be prepared to back it up with facts. This goes for any situation, not just here on ESMB or WWP or wherever.

Some people and organization (not just the cult) are extremely vindictive and will do almost anything to silence critics. Be sure of what you say.

Axiom142

An anon I met recently said that she thought Jan Eastgate would plead guilty as the least damaging path. I think that view has some merit.
 
And have you told ‘Anon’ this?

Good luck in advance – you will need it. :biggrin:

You are right in that everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence before any (potential) trial. But people like to discuss things and I hardly think that a court in Australia is going to be influenced by what is said here and on other ‘critical’ sites. However important we like to think we are, we are but a drop in the ocean of chit chat that is the Interweb. I can’t see that anything said here is going to have any effect – one way or another.

And let's not forget that it was free discussion that lead to the discovery of the evidence and corroboration by other witnesses in the first place. Only the cult would want people not to discuss the (alleged :coolwink: ) crimes by it’s members.

There was a huge amount of talk about Rex Fowler but this didn’t have any influence or threaten to derail the trial, did it?

As for libel suits, why would the cult sue? Have they been accused? As for Eastgate, I don’t think that even she is that stupid. Anyone remotely connected with Scientology has no credibility with the general public – which is what any jury would be made up of. Can you imagine the awkward questions she would be asked under oath? Imagine the dirty washing that would be displayed for the whole world to see and be recorded for posterity. They might threaten and bluster, but they can’t afford to go to court.

But having said that, it is always sensible to be careful what you say about actual people. Expressing an opinion is one thing, but if you make accusations of a criminal nature, you had better be prepared to back it up with facts. This goes for any situation, not just here on ESMB or WWP or wherever.

Some people and organization (not just the cult) are extremely vindictive and will do almost anything to silence critics. Be sure of what you say.

Axiom142


I agree. And the entitlement to presumption of innocence is in the court. Outside the court, presumption of innocence in the J.E. case would mean that the accusers would have to be presumed to be guilty of lying. The cult of scientology has gotten away with far too much by shutting people up.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Good post, Ax. :thumbsup:

I do disagree with one aspect, though. I would be VERY surprised if Jan were to admit guilt in any way, shape or form.

My take on it is that the CofS will support her fully and fight the charges to the bitter end. If it goes ahead, it's not going to be pretty.
 

ClamSource

Patron with Honors
People posting from the US may be under the impression that 1st Amendment rights to free speech are recognised by the Australian courts. They're not. Any right to free speech in Australia is based on common law, and has a considerably narrower purview.

Australian courts can and will rule mistrial if either jury or witnesses can be shown to have been suborn or coerced.

And please spare the ad homs. They're not relevant to critical thinking.

Anon can say or do what they like, so long as it's outside the Australian jurisdiction. Reason for my concern is what may transpire at Australian pickets.
 
Last edited:

ClamSource

Patron with Honors
People posting from the US may be under the impression that 1st Amendment rights to free speech are recognised by the Australian courts. They're not. Any right to free speech in Australia is based on common law, and has a considerably narrower purview.

Australian courts can and will rule mistrial if either jury or witnesses can be shown to have been suborn or coerced.

And please spare the ad homs. They're not relevant to critical thinking.

Axiom142, Anon can say or do what they like, so long as it's outside the Australian jurisdiction. Reason for my concern is what may transpire at Australian pickets.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Uh, that's a big NOT!

The court and its proceedings in Australia must presume Jan Eastgate's innocence. The prosecutors (who obviously found enough evidence to merit her being charged with those awful crimes she is alleged to have committed) must then prove she is not innocent.

I don't have to presume her innocence. I'm neither the judge nor a member of the jury. I don't even live in Australia. I am opining on a Internet message board about a legal proceeding involving a public figure being reported in the newspaper and on the telly.

TG1
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Has the church gone after Xenophon for stating they are a criminal cult?
People posting from the US may be under the impression that 1st Amendment rights to free speech are recognised by the Australian courts. They're not. Any right to free speech in Australia is based on common law, and has a considerably narrower purview.

Australian courts can and will rule mistrial if either jury or witnesses can be shown to have been suborn or coerced.

And please spare the ad homs. They're not relevant to critical thinking.

Axiom142, Anon can say or do what they like, so long as it's outside the Australian jurisdiction. Reason for my concern is what may transpire at Australian pickets.
 

ClamSource

Patron with Honors
Has the church gone after Xenophon for stating they are a criminal cult?

He'll have said so with the benefit of parliamentary privilege. Inside parliament, you can say anything without question of libel. Outside you are. Paul Keating called it "six yards to courage".
 

freethinker

Sponsor
So, with all your knowledge and know how, why did you post this thread?
He'll have said so with the benefit of parliamentary privilege. Inside parliament, you can say anything without question of libel. Outside you are. Paul Keating called it "six yards to courage".
 
Top