Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo (Debbie Cook Case)

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

I'll copy some here for those who don't like to click. This is a doozy!



Scientology, Deposed? Debbie Cook Goes on the Offensive
By Tony Ortega Tue., Mar. 6 2012 at 8:00 AM

On Friday, the Church of Scientology did as promised and filed a motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit against former executive Debbie Cook. The church is asking the Bexar County, Texas district court to see this lawsuit as a simple contract dispute, and one the church deserves to win without going any further.

Cook's attorney, Ray Jeffrey, told us that he thinks there's enough disagreement over the basic facts that a judge won't grant Scientology's motion -- the church maintains that when Cook sent out a New Year's Eve e-mail complaining about how Scientology is now betraying its original principles with a focus on "extreme fundraising," she violated the terms of a 2007 non-disclosure agreement she signed when she left the church's employ. But in a stunning February 9 hearing, Cook told a very different story -- that she signed that agreement only under extreme duress, and that she had literally been under guard when she was forced to sign it before she could go free from what had become a nightmare of abuse.

Jeffrey predicted that not only would a judge not cut the case short by granting the church an easy victory, but that the case would get even messier for the church.

Yesterday, Debbie Cook made good on part of that prediction, opening up several new lines in her counterattack with three new court filings that promise to make the discovery process a painful one for David Miscavige, Scientology's leader.

We have copies of those filings posted below.

In the first document, Cook is calling for Scientology to be deposed in the case, this Monday.

Jeffrey explained to me that Cook can ask for the church to produce witnesses to be questioned under oath so quickly as long as no particular witness is asked for by name.

If Cook wanted to depose Kathy True, for example -- the head of "external security" at Scientology's Florida "Mecca" who, Cook testified, hunted down Cook and her husband when they tried to flee the church in 2007 -- they would have to do so in Florida, and probably at a much later date. But under Texas law, Cook instead can produce a list of questions she wants asked in a deposition, and it's the church's responsibility to produce a witness who is competent to answer them -- and without having to go to Florida or anywhere else.

"They're required to send someone who knows what they're talking about," Jeffrey told me by phone yesterday.

Among the questions Cook wants to be addressed in a deposition, and in only a few days...

-- "The Security arrangements at Hacienda Gardens in 2007," the apartment complex where Cook says she and her husband were held against their will, forced to take part in constant "confessions," and felt they had to sign anything to be allowed to leave.

-- "The Defendants' financial compensation and vacation during their employment
with the Plaintiff,"
a question that should elicit some detail about how Sea Org members toil for up to 100 hours and for about 50 dollars a week, with almost no days off, ever.

-- "The relationship between the Plaintiff and David Miscavige from 2006 to the
present,
" and now we're really getting somewhere. As we've written earlier, Scientology's attorneys have so far tried to convince the Texas district court that the church's ultimate leader, Miscavige, is not a party to this suit. But Cook is making this lawsuit more and more about her treatment at the hands of the "Chairman of the Board," particularly during her 7-week alleged imprisonment in "the Hole," a notorious office-prison at Scientology's California international base.

-- "The relationship between the Plaintiff and Marty Rathbun from 1990 to the
present"..
."The relationship between the Plaintiff and Mike Rinder from 1990 to the present." Now we get into nightmare territory for the church. Not only is Cook indicating that she wants to bring into this case details about the defections of two of Scientology's most formerly high-ranking officials and currently two of its most effective critics, but the filing puts the church on notice that she plans to have Rathbun and Rinder present at the taking of the deposition.

Um, wow.

"Of course they're going to fight it, but it's ridiculous that they filed this motion for summary judgment on Friday," Jeffrey told me, explaining that Scientology's attorneys are trying to hurry the case, no doubt because it's gone so badly for them so far.

In the second filing, Cook continues the discovery process by asking the church to turn over various records, and again, church leader David Miscavige is targeted directly.

In the third filing, Jeffrey asks the court to delay the church's motion for summary judgment, pointing out that Scientology is rushing things before a single deposition has been taken or any of Cook's requests for records have been addressed.

Knowing that, under the Bexar County district court's way of doing things the case will likely rotate to a new judge unfamiliar with what has happened to this point, Jeffrey made sure to hammer home some startling facts...

Ms. Cook was among the most loyal and valuable Scientologists in the world before she was viciously abused and discarded by the Church in 2007. Before her departure from the Church's employment, she was beaten, tortured, terrorized, degraded, kidnapped, denied medical care, held against her will, and forced to sign an unconscionable contract. During her 27-year career, she dedicated herself to her Church employment for long hours, seven days' per week, 52 weeks per year. At one stretch, she worked ten years without a single personal day off. Her financial compensation was less than $10,000 per year. The Church has billions of dollars in wealth, but provides no financial retirement plan for the workers who dedicate their life to its service...

And...

According to the world view of Church leaders, Ms. Cook and her husband now must be squashed like bugs. The current litigation against Ms. Cook and her husband is a classic example of the Church of Scientology's overreaching approach to litigation...

This next part I can attest to myself: I was there to see it...

In its zeal to keep the lid on its misdeeds concerning Ms. Cook, the Church sought unsuccessfully to exclude the news media from the courtroom. The attorney went so far as to make his opening statement, and then request that the Defendants' attorney be prevented from making an opening statement on their behalf...

Jeffrey says Scientology's motion for summary judgment was "ridiculously premature," and is an attempt to end things before his client can even get going.

In an e-mail, Jeffrey also wanted us to know how much the readers of this blog are contributing to the way this lawsuit is turning out...

Tony, I would like your readers to know how much we appreciate their responses to your posts of the case documents. Aside from the humor (which I, for one, need during this ordeal), their brilliant legal minds are helping us with their analyses. They may not be privy to all the facts and the nuances of Texas legal rules, but they are raising important points that we are incorporating into our multi-pronged counterattack ....Again, Debbie and my thanks to them and you. -- Ray

And here are the documents. As usual, I look forward to your analysis of them!


1. Notice of Deposition (document) .... http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/debbie_cook_ups.php
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Latest docs from Jeffrey make a great read.

Competence inspires such hope for me.

Dear God, may this be the time and place for the Cof$ Wall of Stone to be annihilated.

For once and for all let half a century of this abomination of a church and philosophy, replete with justice denied, unpunished crime and abuse, be brought to an end.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Wow ... read those documents! :biggrin:

Way to go DM! Brilliant move in suing Debbie and Wayne. :clap: Your pride and arrogance just couldn't resist getting revenge, and now the snowball is much bigger and picking up speed on it's journey downhill.

And WE THANK YOU!!!! :roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Another brilliant comment from John P. (God, I love this guy.)

....................

From the high level, this is delightful fun. But some of the details of these filings are utterly awesome. Lawyering at its finest.

* “Be careful what you wish for” department: In a filing last week, Church attorney George Spencer demanded that Debbie Cook promise not to have Rinder & Rathbun testify in the case. Looks like his wish was granted… The deposition notice says that Mike & Marty will be “in attendance” during the deposition on Monday. It sounds like their presence is to advise Mr. Jeffery, which may well make them ineligible to serve as witnesses later on. But, of course, they’re far more dangerous sitting next to Mr. Jeffery whispering in his ear after every answer, “He’s lying. Now ask him x to catch him at it.” This ought to be causing David Miscavige to have a heart attack on about now.

* “Hang ‘Em High” Texas justice in action: Exploiting the unusual Texas rule that says they can compel a deposition almost immediately if the party requesting it doesn’t care who it is just brilliant. Notice how Mr. Jeffery uses the list of the matters to be testified to in such a way that there are only a handful of people who can show up? I am sure that if the Church tries to send some low-level underling who doesn’t have direct knowledge of the requested issues, they’ll be sanctioned for it massively. We probably won't know who they're sending until somebody shows up. But Mr. Jeffery must have a pretty good idea, since he'll have Mike & Marty sitting there. The short list of witnesses all undoubtedly knew Mike and Marty well.

* Look carefully at the list of documents to be produced: Number 11 is “all surveillance videos and photos taken during this litigation, including those of Defendants, their home, their legal team, their law offices and their witnesses.” This is a masterful counterstroke against the surveillance. By now, Mr. Jeffery undoubtedly has his own videos of Scientology OSA goons running around taping him, complete with license numbers. Even better, he may have gotten the Bulverde PD to investigate reports of stalkers, and they may have conclusively linked people taking video and photos of Mr. Jeffery back to the Church already. If the Church denies taping Mr. Jeffery, and then a Bulverde police officer gets on the stand and says “In response to a citizen complaint, I observed someone videotaping Mr. Jeffery’s law office. I approached said person who informed me that they were a private investigator retained by the Church of Scientology.” Who is the court going to believe? The Church or a police officer?

* Mystery requests 20 & 21: It is very interesting to ask for billing records from attorneys Elliott Abelson (Abelson was the lawyer present when the Cooks signed the agreement in Florida) and Gary Soter. I am totally mystified at what Mr. Jeffery is trying to get at with that one. I have no idea whether billing records would be covered under attorney/client privilege. My only guess is that they’re trying to establish that Mr. Abelson had recorded no entries for phone conversations discussing the agreements with opposing counsel, to prove that Debbie and Wayne were denied access to counsel before signing the agreements. There may be something else entirely going on; this bears watching as a surprise element.

* “Vexatious Litigant” claim: The opening of the motion to compel is remarkable because the first paragraph calls the Church a “vexatious litigant.” This is a very specific legal term for somebody who files a lot of bogus lawsuits, clogging up the court system. Usually, it’s a specific legal status that is assigned by the Court meaning that the party has been ordered not to file additional litigation without prior permission by the court. Mr. Jeffery is citing a lot of press references, not legal cases to establish that the Church is a vexatious litigant. And he’s not moving for that status here. He’s just putting this issue at the top of the (presumably new) judge’s mind to try to establish skepticism about their motives and maneuvering in what follows, especially in case the judge that hears this motion is ultimately assigned the entire case under the Court’s “complex case” rule.

When I’ve seen this term used before, the plaintiffs are usually either insane (little old ladies suing every person in their neighborhood for billions of dollars over the noise of sprinklers coming on too early in the morning) or prisoners with nothing better to do than file bizarre lawsuits (I remember a couple years ago some guy in jail who sued Google and Yahoo for using the Internet to steal his thoughts). So to label a corporate entity as a vexatious litigant is to call them insane as an organization. A nice touch!

* “Discovery Abuse:” The next section of the motion to compel deals with the issue of the video that Mr. Spencer denied existed, but which the Church attorneys then produced immediately in their portion of the case. Mr. Jeffery is ensuring that the new judge in the case understands that the Church has established a pattern of lying about evidence from the very earliest moment in the case. Again, he’s working to seed the opinion of any new judges who come in contact with the case against the Church. Any judge who suspects that a party to the case is abusing discovery, one of the fundamental pillars of the civil legal process, is going to be very upset with that party. It is not going to go well with the Church if they are proven to have abused discovery once the case gets to trial, since the judge can find the Church lacking in credibility because they misled the Court and the other side.

* Continuance of Motion for Summary Judgment: Mr. Jeffery points out that the filing for Summary Judgment is premature, since there has been no compliance with previous discovery requests. And he points out the totality of circumstances in how the Church has attempted to prevent the Cooks from mounting any defense at all. So now he’s seeking extensive discovery before the motion for summary judgment is heard. One would hope that the Court allows lots of juicy discovery before the motion is heard as a penalty for the Church’s non-compliance.

So on the whole, the motion opposing summary judgement consists of three parts: First, Mr. Jeffery calls the Church a “vexatious litigant,” which basically means that they are a) insane and b) going to waste the court’s time. Then he goes on to say that they have trampled one of the fundamental pillars of the legal system from the very outset of the case: complying honestly with discovery requests. He then stacks up how the Church’s prior antics have been extraordinary measures to prevent the Cooks from having a legal defense that they are entitled to under the Constitution, and then he closes by pointing out that the Church has violated all sorts of procedural rules in filing their motion for summary judgment so soon, and requests that it be postponed immediately for proper discovery. Hard to imagine that a court is going to rule against a motion like that.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

More from John P. (I love this guy.)

...............

A couple more thoughts about the filings, now that they’ve settled in a bit:

1. The deposition on Monday may be a veiled threat to the Church – if you stonewall Mr. Jeffery by sending somebody on Monday who doesn’t know what they are talking about, that means that the court is very likely to sanction you by approving depositions of a whole bunch of people by name when discovery begins in earnest. And that list would almost certainly have you-know-who at the top. So if the Church doesn’t come clean in the deposition Monday, then the odds increase that Miscavige will have to appear on the stand. And he will have nobody to blame but himself. I have to believe that Mr. Spencer understands this. We’ll see if DM and the rest of the loons and goons do.

2. The Church filed the suit in a Texas court but wants wants Florida law applied. I now wonder if this sort of maneuver is to keep the Texas court at a disadvantage as to what, exactly, the law is and how to apply the fine points of it correctly. That, in turn, sounds like a strategy to increase the odds of success on appeal, since appeals are usually about whether the judge applied the law correctly, rather than whether the evidence was correct or not. So by expecting a judge to apply a law they’re not familiar with, it would increase the odds of being able to at least mount a long (and expensive for Debbie Cook) appeal fight, even if they’re not ultimately successful. So that may have been a significant factor in the Church’s decision to file suit in Texas rather than Florida.

3. Related to the point above, I wonder if the choice of law (Florida versus Texas) is not the same thing as “choice of procedure.” In other words, the Texas procedure for quick depositions from “any qualified witness” may not be part of Florida procedure, and Texas procedure applies even if you ask the Texas court to follow Florida law. If that is true, then the Church may have made an error by not taking into account procedural differences between Texas and Florida. They may have assumed that the deposition rules were fairly similar to Florida’s, and they may have been banking on Florida procedure that may allow them to restrict discovery massively. Oops!

4. Mr. Jeffery’s e-mail to opposing counsel about the surveillance on his offices last week sounded like the beginning of a strategy to drive a wedge between the Church and its local lawyers, putting pressure on them to withdraw. Attorneys can only withdraw from a case “for good cause,” and they may be required to describe that cause before a judge to get permission. I suspect good cause includes persistent attempts by the client to pervert the course of justice, whether it’s criminal behavior like witness tampering, or at least a massive violation of basic principles like discovery abuse. If discovery abuse becomes a persistent pattern, rather than something that the Church could claim is an isolated incident, then it’s much easier for Mr. Spencer to withdraw with his reputation intact. So by documenting all the discovery abuse that has happened in what is still very early innings in this case Mr. Jeffery is making it easy for Mr. Spencer to use that escape hatch.
 

Petey C

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Hooray!!

Isn't it amazing how those SP, DB, downstat wog lawyers and a bitter, defrocked SP apostate can be so clever when they're up against the elite, clear/OT Sea Org planet clearers who have no case on post and are always upstat!!!
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Hooray!!

Isn't it amazing how those SP, DB, downstat wog lawyers and a bitter, defrocked SP apostate can be so clever when they're up against the elite, clear/OT Sea Org planet clearers who have no case on post and are always upstat!!!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Man, I think I'm gonna wind up loosing dough on my Popcorn Futures...I keep eating up all the profits. :biggrin:

There's a reason why Scn has always had a very small and tenuous footprint in Texas. :yes:

Texas ain't no SoCal, NorCal or a suburb of NYC like Florida. :no:

Scn is getting a crash course in Lone Star Law and Culture. :omg:

“No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a-comin‘“. Texas Ranger Motto :coolwink:

Let 'er Buck!!! :happydance:


Face :)
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Hooray!!

Isn't it amazing how those SP, DB, downstat wog lawyers and a bitter, defrocked SP apostate can be so clever when they're up against the elite, clear/OT Sea Org planet clearers who have no case on post and are always upstat!!!

Agreed.

In the Debbie Cook litigation, the cult has "no case". :biggrin:
 

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Oh happy day:happydance:

Wee Slappy McSavage just got bitch-slapped AGAIN by Debbie.:roflmao:

Dave, look at it as a learning curve - once they fit you with an orange jump-suit, You'll be getting a lot of that from a lot of BIG men. :hysterical:

Oh, and start practicing holding Your ankles - Your arms won't get so sore that way.:dieslaughing:
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Comments on the question of stalking:

Gerard Plourde 1 hour ago

i agree with your analysis concerning the choice of law/choice of procedure issue. It appears that in trying to gain an advantage by having the judge apply foreign law the COS left itself wide open to the quick deposition process.

I also think that the local attorneys for the COS have to be sweating somewhat over the surveillance issue. Can anyone find out what if anything the Texas code of professional conduct may say about an attorney's duty to prevent illegal behavior by a client? A big paycheck from the COS would be worth far less if the attorneys end up before a bar disciplinary committee.

John P. 1 hour ago in reply to Gerard Plourde

From Texas Disciplinary Rules of Processional Conduct, Rule 1.02 (“Scope and Objectives of Representation”)

"(c) A lawyer shall not assist or counsel a client to engage in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. A lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel and represent a client in connection with the making of a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

(d) When a lawyer has confidential information clearly establishing that a client is likely to commit a criminal or fraudulent act that is likely to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, the lawyer shall promptly make reasonable efforts under the circumstances to dissuade the client from committing the crime or fraud.

(e) When a lawyer has confidential information clearly establishing that the lawyer's client has committed a criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services have been used, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts under the circumstances to persuade the client to take corrective action."

----------

(C) says that a lawyer can’t actually help his client do anything bad. (D) says that when the client says they are going to do something bad, the lawyer must tell his client
not to do that. (E) requires a lawyer, when he gets information that the client has done something criminal, to ask the client politely to repair the damage from his criminal action.

None of it says that the attorney is responsible for actually preventing the action, just that the attorney must make a reasonable effort to persuade them to stop. Lots of wiggle room on that front, and no penalty for failure to actually stop them. So I doubt Mr. Spencer will be up on charges even if there is a fair amount of bad behavior from his clients. The path out of the woods for Mr. Spencer would likely be to withdraw from the case if his client acts badly enough.

Even if the Church told Mr. Spencer that they were going to do this surveillance (I'm sure they didn't), the key issue in determining whether disciplinary action could be brought is whether this type of surveillance is a crime. The code section only deals with "crime" and "fraud." It doesn't deal with "repugnant, disgusting low-life behavior."

I am not going to take a stab at whether the surveillance Mr. Jeffery has experienced is a crime. If "stalking" but not "surveillance" is a crime, then it would have to be established that the Church is "stalking," which I would assume would involve direct protection from an interested individual (i.e., a psycho ex husband). Hiring licensed professional private investigators to do surveillance for you may specifically be excluded from the definition of "stalking."
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Some more comments

WWP_Anon 5

I hate to be the sayer of nays here, but we need to proceed with this
party with a certain amount of caution. Those of us who have been doing
this for a while have been down this road before and it rarely leads
where we would like. This time we don't have exes suing or anons
involved, we have Scientologists vs CoS. What they intend to do and
what outcome they wish for is entirely different than any lawsuit we
have seen to date.

Further, Mike, Debbie and Marty have a vested interest in keeping some
things secret. All of them are in some way involved in some of the
crimes of the cult. They are also the creators of some of the most
brilliant tactics designed to protect the cult.

This is posturing, a game of chicken where none of the parties involved
can afford for their crimes to come to light. Miscavige cannot take the
stand, nor will he. Debbie cannot allow him to be, otherwise some of her
own crimes, namely the Lisa McPherson death, will be made public. It
won't happen folks, they all have too much dirt on one another to ever
allow this to proceed. They would all lose.

My guess is that this will all be disposed of quietly and without
sorrow, behind closed doors and we will never know what really happened.

It is what they do.

Kroyce88

I met with Kathy True last September in an attempt to get some agreement where my children would not be forced by OSA (the church's Office of Special Affairs) to disconnect from me and my husband. She would never answer my questions. She was only interested in telling me that my observations of the church were incorrect and that she had first hand knowledge that any problems had been corrected and that the whole Ideal Org scene, for one, was doing exceptionally well. Later, during a phone call, she told me that ever since Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder had left the church, unprecedented expansion had taken place, indicating that they were the "SPs" on the lines that were keeping the church from further expansion. She made NO MENTION of Debbie Cook, but Debbie Cook was still the Captain of FSO after Mike and Marty left. So, how come the church was having unprecedented expansion while Debbie was still there?? Now, Debbie is included in the statement of unprecedented expansion taking place only AFTER she was gotten off the lines. Kathy also lied to me about the circumstances under which Lisa McPherson was brought to the Fort Harrison where she died a short while later.

Chuck Beatty 46 minutes ago

Points that stick out to me:

a) Debbie Cook, is still factually a Scientologist, per the Scientology belief system. She was trying to play by the rules, and she's trying even now, to limit violation of the extensive Hubbad "ethics rules."

b) Debbie's email is still in any case, a violation of several of the "SP rules", most importantly overall her email unfortunately does leave no doubt that Miscavige, the highest church officer, is the one currently in the wrong. And doubly unfortunately, Hubbard's "SP rules" include a phrase that precludes Scientologists from taking any actions to "save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology." (page 313, 2007 edition of the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" book by L. Ron Hubbard, their most recent public printing of their "ethics" rules. [Hubbard's self-protecting rules preclude anyone publicly criticizing the highest church officers,especially not publicly and the only correct way to criticize is with Knowledge Reports or to Committees of Evidence, and her email isn't the correct way to correct Miscavige, the Hubbard scriptures how to correct Miscavige is technically a 1959 tape lecture, Individuation, which means another of the higher officers needs to sit Miscavige down and give him a tailor made Sec Check and factually force him to atone for Miscavige's transgression through Security Checking, that is the ONLY Hubbard allowed internal avenue, other than two lesser policies, Knowledge Reports has a general statement of how one is to put ethics pressure on one's superiors as needed at times, and there's "Corrupt Activities" policy also of 1982 like the Knowlege Reports PL is, where Hubbard says sitting down with the culprit in private and having a stern confrontation. Both a stern confrontation with Miscavige should be done, and intense Security Checking with a tailor made Security Check digging right into Miscaviges known transgresssion. Of historical note, Jesse Prince executed a Sec Check on Miscavige as ordered by LRH, years earlier. That is the precedent and the above are what are technically scripturally what I would have told whoever asked me, if I were asked what to do with Miscavige, from my "expert" knowledge of the standard Hubbard options.

The movement top ranks have NO one to do the "standard" actions on Miscavige, the stern confrontation and the Security Checking, to flush out Miscavige's scriptures violations.

I urge the LAWYER to ask during the Deposition, IF they excommunicated her BEFORE suing her?

Because if that is the case, they violated their own scriptures. The sequence should be excommunicate first, sue secondly. If done the other way around, it violates Hubbard scriptures.


c) Otherwise these list of deposition questions look good, they'll prove that official Scientology has violated outrageously Hubbard's own clearcut orders, specifically page 363 of the 2007 edition of the "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" book by L. Ron Hubbard, where after the full listing of the Hubbard "ethics gradients" are listed, Hubbard states:

"Note that none of it carries any physical punishment or detention."

- L. Ron Hubbard

Debbie might not be going about handling Miscavige in the technically correct Hubbard scriptures way, but absolutely Debbie is a Scientologist, and she means well for the Scientology organization.
 
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Oh happy day:happydance:

Wee Slappy McSavage just got bitch-slapped AGAIN by Debbie.:roflmao:

Dave, look at it as a learning curve - once they fit you with an orange jump-suit, You'll be getting a lot of that from a lot of BIG men. :hysterical:

Oh, and start practicing holding Your ankles - Your arms won't get so sore that way.:dieslaughing:

Too much glee, Scoot. This is a matter of civil law NOT criminal law. There are no orange jump-suits or shower room calisthenics in play in this. The most that is at stake is financial restitution and as an additional (and very remote) possibility the prospect of backing the church into a position where Miscavige needs to be displaced. There is nothing here relating to a criminal prosecution.


Mark A. Baker
 

Kutta

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Too much glee, Scoot. This is a matter of civil law NOT criminal law. There are no orange jump-suits or shower room calisthenics in play in this. The most that is at stake is financial restitution and as an additional (and very remote) possibility the prospect of backing the church into a position where Miscavige needs to be displaced. There is nothing here relating to a criminal prosecution.


Mark A. Baker

That sounds unreasonably tame given that torture, kidnap, etc are surely criminal offenses that will be spotlighted.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Civil can turn into criminal especially in Texas but I think you like the idea that it is civil and not criminal.
Too much glee, Scoot. This is a matter of civil law NOT criminal law. There are no orange jump-suits or shower room calisthenics in play in this. The most that is at stake is financial restitution and as an additional (and very remote) possibility the prospect of backing the church into a position where Miscavige needs to be displaced. There is nothing here relating to a criminal prosecution.


Mark A. Baker
 

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

Too much glee, Scoot. This is a matter of civil law NOT criminal law. There are no orange jump-suits or shower room calisthenics in play in this. The most that is at stake is financial restitution and as an additional (and very remote) possibility the prospect of backing the church into a position where Miscavige needs to be displaced. There is nothing here relating to a criminal prosecution.


Mark A. Baker

Killjoy:biggrin:

I hope however that having these crimes of DM publicized like this will result in the relevant law-enforcement authorities actually taking action and charging the cancerous little gnome with His offences.:yes:
 
Top