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

BunnySkull

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

I posted this before, and perhaps I am dense, but knowing the nature of Scientology and it's belief that it is senior to wog law, and the way the church has been running this legal battle so far, I am serious: What can the court do to force the Church to comply with Debbie's counsel's demands? Can the church say "screw off, we aren't giving them the data" or "too late - we shredded it" or "it doesn't exist" and basically tell the court to get lost?


Mimsey

You should read the quotes on here highlighted from the Village Voice, it provides a detailed answers to this and more. If the cult sends a bunch of stooges with no direct knowledge the court can turn around and punish them by allowing Cook et al. to request by name those to be deposed and force the cult to comply. If they try to fuck around there will be penalties. Also, the question are phrased in such a way, with such soecifics, there really are only a handful of people the cult can send which could have an ounce of credibility. read the VV comments copy and pasted here for even more info on this.

The cult already screwed itself by at first denying the existence of video tapes to Jeffery, then when they showed up in court they produced the video of Debbie signing the contracts - so they've already demonstrated obstruction in discovery and Texas law deals with this harshly. If the cult tries to fuck around, and they will, it will be punished and could even get a judgement against them or their attorneys sanctioned. Texas discovery is much better for us than the laws in CA of Fla. It seems the cult made some assumptions about discovery procedure in TX being similar to CA or FL - they were wrong and it will hurt them.
 
Last edited:

BunnySkull

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

Because its worth depleting, from page 1 (there is another set of comments from John P worth reading before this one, also pg 1)

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.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

This is way cool.

From the end of this blog post:

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

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

 
church: Judge, let us drag feet & not answer all questions

See this post at VV for the latest today - and look - in there is a list of questions they don't want to answer ( #5, 8, 10-17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29 & 30) Plus they want "substantial additional time to [STRIKE]feed the shredders[/STRIKE] designate corporate reprensetatives..."

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/scientology_dea_1.php

The questions are in this link:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/debbie_cook_ups.php

Mimsey
 

RogerB

Crusader
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.


Snipped . . .

* “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!

Snipped . . .

.

A wee error re the statement highlighted in red.

I earlier responded to it without having read Jeffrey's submission, and noted I was surprised he had not given Court citations.

In actuality, he did. It's all in the "fine print" foot notes.

He cites very clearly the Courts who have held the Cof$ to be vexatious litigants and cites the Wikipedia article I had posted a month or so ago on an earlier thread concerning these legal cases. And he cites expertly the instances and cases wherein the Cof$ engaged in vexatious actions and activity; both in Court and and as part of the case proceedings outside of the actual Court.

I fact, in reading his brief to the court, I have to say it is just simply wonderfully presented: quite brilliant, and particularly the part wherein he make known to this Court the nature of the beast that is the Cof$ in Court.

Debbie's attorney is indeed a class act. :yes:

RoberB
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: church: Judge, let us drag feet & not answer all questions

#9 should be on the 100 most stupid thread.

It says the motion for Summary Judgement will give the defendants the discovery they desperately seek to acquire.

Now if that isn;t stupid then it's worse than stupid.

#10 in the unlikely event that Summary Judgement is denied...

#11 The remaining categories of testimony requested are irrelevant.

There's a lot of desperation in that document.

THe church is operating on some weird type of logic. If they can prove something and what they are proving is true for them then that is it it is true and nothing else matters. I wonder where they get that from.

This is where the logic fail exists within their operations. There is no refuting allowed because all that matters is what they think appies. Everything else does not exist.

This is the real world and False Data Stripping is not going to be applied. This is what some in Scientology call Severe Reality Adjustment.

What I find amazing is that Spencer is willing to keep at it. Either he must truly think that the Churches claims are all that matters or he is just servicing his client for all it is worth.

Rd00
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Re: church: Judge, let us drag feet & not answer all questions

See this post at VV for the latest today - and look - in there is a list of questions they don't want to answer ( #5, 8, 10-17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29 & 30) Plus they want "substantial additional time to [STRIKE]feed the shredders[/STRIKE] designate corporate reprensetatives..."

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/scientology_dea_1.php

The questions are in this link:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/debbie_cook_ups.php

Mimsey


Village Voice:

Scientology: Dear Judge, Protect Us from Rathbun and Rinder!
By Tony Ortega Wed., Mar. 7 2012 at 8:00 AM

Yesterday, we reported that Debbie Cook had gone on the offensive in the lawsuit filed against her by the Church of Scientology.

The church had earlier filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the Bexar County, Texas court to award it an early win in the case; Cook answered back that she wants the church's motion delayed as she requests documents from Scientology in the discovery process. She also asked to depose someone representing the church this coming Monday, and gave notice that during that deposition she plans to have along with her former high-ranking Scientology executives Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder -- both of whom are highly visible and effective critics of church leader David Miscavige.

Last night, we learned about the church's countermove: its attorneys asked the court to
delay the production of documents until their motion for summary judgment has been adjudicated. And if the motion is not granted, to delay the deposition and limit it in scope.

Oh, and one more thing: "That Rathbun and Rinder be excluded from the deposition."

We can imagine the church's concern.

As members of our excellent commenting community pointed out yesterday, it may give Cook a huge advantage to have Rathbun and Rinter as advisers to her attorney Ray Jeffrey during a deposition of church executives. Marty Rathbun was once the second-highest official in the church, answering only to Scientology's ultimate leader, David Miscavige; Mike Rinder was once the organization's chief spokesman and ran its intelligence wing. Since 2009, Rathbun has run a blog that in the past we've called perhaps the single biggest external threat to the continuing health of Miscavige's grip on the church.

Will the church be able to keep Rathbun and Rinder out of these proceedings? At this point, we don't even know which Bexar County district judge is going to consider this flurry of court filings coming from both sides.

A hearing is scheduled for Friday morning, however, and we only wish we were going to be in the courtroom. Thankfully, reporters like John MacCormack of the San Antonio Express-News and Michael Barajas of the San Antonio Current should be all over it.

Here's the church's filing, and we await your analysis (click on the documents to enlarge them)...
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
VV Comments:

mirele
I have to admit, I guffawed when I saw that headline.

I think this has to be a new feeling for the Co$, or a feeling it's not had for a loooong time--it's on uncertain ground in a court. In the past, the Co$ has been in friendly courts (e.g., Pinellas county, Florida) and/or had so much overwhelming legal firepower that even if their attorneys messed up every now and then, it didn't matter, because the party they were suing was severely undermanned by comparison.

But this is Texas, the Co$ doesn't have a real presence in the state (I'll agree with the Peter Mansell statement on that) and the cult is facing a sharp local attorney who, so far, has risen to the occasion with aplomb.

If I was a betting woman, this is how I see it play out: the motion for summary judgment will be heard and DENIED at the district court, because there are issues of material fact in dispute. The cult will then appeal the denial to the court of appeals and attempt to keep the depositions from going forward at the same time. However, I don't think the cult will ultimately be able to keep Rinder and Rathbun from aiding Jeffrey, short of suing the both of THEM for violating non-disclosure agreements. Which opens up additional cans of legal worms because I'm pretty sure neither Rinder nor Rathbun were given large "settlements."

I'd lay in some popcorn if I didn't have to get a root canal tomorrow morning.

Idrathernot 9 hours ago

If you didn't believe that the COS is scared shitless.. you can now. They absolutely are trying their damndest to squash any more of their dirty laundry from being aired. Personally, this show beats Jerry Springer any day. After I was released from a child Scientology labor camp, I met Debbie Cook, she a lovely and honest person.Take faith in what she is saying to be 100% true. While I never saw The Hole itself, we had something very similar for kids that I was unfortunate enough to be confined in for over 3 years.

One can only hope that anyone reading this who MIGHT have been on the fence about Scientology sees the organization for its true colors. I say the COS highly underestimated what pitbulls Debbie, Mark and Mike have proven to be. I think that saying.. let that puppy dog mouth tote a big dog ass whoopin fits the COS so much the irony makes me giggle. The COS opened this door, I hope they enjoy what walks through it!

t1kk

They're correct in asserting that purely as a matter of procedure, not to mention judicial economy, the summary judgment motion would moot discovery, as it would end the case. So I would expect the court to grant a continuance pending that motion's outcome, regardless of that motion's likelihood of being granted.

As for the protective order request, that was also expected, as the interrogatories et al. envision a defense, duress, scientology rejects as being applicable to the case (and the may well prevail on this question, one reason I recommended multiple defenses). I've no idea what the court will do here but there are two competing truisms at work: judges are a) curious, but b) reluctant to permit sprawling discovery requests.

Whatever else the court does, they're likely to at least ground all discovery until the summary judgment motion is decided.

Gerard Plourde 7 hours ago in reply to t1kk

In Pennsylvania and I'm sure elsewhere a Motion for Summary Judgment is usually filed after discovery is complete because documentary evidence, answers to interrogatories, deposition transcripts, admissions by parties and expert reports are included as exhibits for the court to consider. The record on which the plaintiffs base their motion indicates that factual determinations are required. I'd expect the judge to deny the motion.


t1kk 7 hours ago in reply to Gerard Plourde

Scientology's argument is that the court already has all the evidence it needs before it, which may be accurate if the court accepts their argument that the defendants ratified an otherwise voidable agreement by failing to timely raise the coercion/duress defense and accepting the payments. I think there are good reasons for this argument to fail but I also wouldn't be shocked if it succeeded.



SFF in reply to t1kk

Even if the agreement is deemed valid surely the fact that it has been violated is not clear cut as it appears to hinge on the "disparagement" clauses.

I'd have to have another look but the CoS filing talked about which parts of the agreement were violated but did not tie this to specific contents in the e-mail, which would seem to be a necessary part of any claim that its violation was evident.


t1kk in reply to SFF

I think you're right that there is a valid argument that there was no breach. Unfortunately, I also think that Cook enlarged the question of what could be deemed to have breached the NDA beyond the scope of the December 31 email, by granting interviews subsequent to the withdrawal of the TRO. While her testimony in court at the TRO hearing was privileged, everything after and outside of court was not.


SFF in reply to t1kk

True. Does the CoS need to amend its filing to include things beyond the NYE e-mail or is that really just part of the damages phase if the agreement has been found to have been violated?


t1kk 5 hours ago in reply to SFF

I don't know whether they necessarily have to amend their original complaint or whether it's sufficient that they simply offer up more evidence at discovery; it'd depend on what they were trying to prove at which stage. They have made mention of the subsequent possibly breaches in subsequent filings but I don't think it's the most pressing issue on their plate, at least until the defense is forced to argue, as a last resort most likely, that there was no breach. And at that point, they'll look down and realize that legs of that argument were cut off.


anon 3 hours ago in reply to t1kk

"could be deemed to have breached the NDA beyond the scope of the December 31 email, by granting interviews"

She did not reveal any new information in those interviews, she only repeated what she testified in court.


t1kk 2 hours ago in reply to anon

I won't go over it with a fine-toothed comb, but I'll bet you're wrong, and regardless, that's not how it works.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
More:

Skydog

Let me see if I get this strait: On a moments notice, the church can send out half a dozen private eyes, OTVIII's, and photographers, clad in squirrel buster regalia complete with "head cameras", to harass Mark Rathbun for several months but cannot send a "corporate representative" to attend a deposition that will take a few days at most?

Admit nothing, deny everything, and most importantly, MAKE COUNTER-ACCUSATIONS-not the defendants are the bad ones for rushing the discovery process!!! The legal tactics of the church are well known and coming back to haunt them.

Legally and for the purposes of the motion for summary judgment, they are admitting that the contract was signed under duress. The claim is that, despite the duress, the subsequent actions of Cook and Baumgarden acted as a ratification of a previously unenforceable contract. It would appear 1) that the church's actions since the signing have a bearing on that issue, i.e., was a four year delay unreasonable under the circumstances; 2) the issue of "substantial consideration" is debatable in light of the services performed by Cook and Baumgarden (thus the request for payments made during their employment). I

n my mind, I seriously doubt Cook's email even breached the agreement. It has been argued that every "confidential fact" concerning the donations and war chest accumulated by the church is a matter of public record. The email was not sent to the press, but rather people that Cook believed to be in good standing with the church. A final argument Attorney Jeffrey may consider (if he is reading this) is that Cook's actions were required and/or authorized by the scriptures of scientology itself.

t1kk 8 hours ago in reply to Skydog

>> Legally and for the purposes of the motion for summary judgment, they are admitting that the contract was signed under duress.

It's wrong to infer that Scientology has, legally or otherwise, admitted that the NDA was signed under duress. They're arguing that it does not matter if it did occur. Legally there's a world of difference, and it's not the least bit uncommon for lawyers to make an if/then argument, reserving the 'if' for another day if 'then' turns out to be a loser.

(I love this guy too Lulu!... and T1kk)

John P.

It looks like this filing contains all the standard delay tactics one would expect from the Church of Scientology.

Scheduling: First off, as one would expect, the Church is claiming that the deposition is too soon. That may in fact be true, but I suspect that either this type of deposition on such a sudden schedule is specifically allowed by local procedure (in which case it will be held on or close to schedule) or that it is simply a ploy by Mr. Jeffery to point out the absurdity of the way that the Church is trying to handle the motion for summary judgment. The Church can’t have it both ways – a rushed hearing for a motion for summary judgment but a burdensome schedule for a simple deposition.

Mr. Jeffery may helpfully point out in his reply the names of specific single individuals who could testify to all of the needed matters to prove that the deposition on a short clock is not a burden. And he would also point out that the deposition is not with records in support of testimony, so the effort for the Church to prepare for testimony is much lower than in a standard deposition.

Excluding Mike & Marty:
Paragraph 3 states "Defendants have also noticed the intention to bring to non-parties to the deposition, Mike Rinder and Mark Rathbun, in further breach of their agreement." The idea that the presence of advisors in a deposition is a breach of the agreement seems as laughable as the Temporary Restraining Order’s provision that contacting attorneys to defend one’s self should be forbidden.

Importantly, in the "Factual Statement and Argument" section, there is zero legal reasoning behind the request to exclude Mike and Marty. This suggests to me that this issue was inserted at the order of David Miscavage (surprise, surprise), even after Mr. Spencer had cautioned his client that it was unlikely to be granted.

The “Open and Shut Case” strategy: Once again, the Church says that this is a simple breach of contract case and that they already have all the evidence they need to establish that Debbie broke the agreement. But of course, that strategy is based on attempting to deny her the right to present an affirmative defense: that there were specific things about the circumstances of her signing the agreement and of her life afterwards that void the agreement, even though she kept the money.

Paragraph 7 says that "in such testimony, Ms. Cook affirmed all facts necessary to establish that she legally ratified an agreement entered into with the plaintiff Church in October 2007." This perhaps suggests that there was a particular strategy at work in why the Church abandoned the quest for a temporary injunction in the February 9 hearing at the specific point that it did, though that came at the cost of not getting a temporary restraining order. They gave up before Mr. Jeffery had fully examined Debbie Cook, especially in getting to the the facts relevant to establishing a claim of duress. So he was mid-way, acknowledging that she signed the agreement, but not to the point where he had fully fleshed out his case for duress and other grounds for voiding the agreement. I would expect Mr. Jeffery’s response to this motion to make it very clear that they had not yet presented their affirmative defense.

Recall that at the point where Scientology announced they were giving up at the February 10 hearing, Mr. Jeffery specifically demanded that if Debbie weren't allowed to complete her testimony, he at least wanted the record to reflect the general area of what she would have testified to. He was clearly aware of the possibility that they had abandoned the hearing at that point for some ulterior reason, perhaps in trying to set up this sort of maneuver. It was very smart attention to detail on his part that he had the presence of mind to establish that he was prevented from a full affirmative presentation of his claim of duress through a procedural game rather than through the merits of the case.

Items the Church wants excluded from discovery when it was taken:
I only took a quick glance through the list of matters to be covered in a deposition in yesterday's filing to check them against the issues that the Church wants excluded. The key things that they want excluded, unsurprisingly, are anything to do with David Miscavage, and also policies and procedures for treatment of employees, which obviously would show that they are expected to live in inhuman conditions, but which would also give a yardstick to show that Debbie acted as a conscientious employee during her tenure with FSO.

They also want any information about the relationship between FSO and Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun (items #16 and #17) to be excluded, presumably because, with Mike and Marty sitting there, it would be very easy to establish that the witness was lying about any testimony given, thus calling into question any other testimony that the witness gives. I have to believe that that is exactly why Mr. Jeffery inserted those items into the subject for the deposition.

Excluding the press:
Here we go again. Last time I checked, court filings are public records unless they contain confidential business information, which the court will seal against disclosure and protect appropriately. So the issue of publicity as a reason to limit discovery is a red herring. It's just another tactic to restrict discovery.

My take: the request to delay the deposition will be granted, but that will either push back or eliminate the motion for summary judgment. I specifically don't believe that Mike and Marty will be excluded from being present at deposition (I erroneously said "testifying" in the initial post but fixed it), given that there was no attempt to argue for why that should be granted. I don't want to speculate on what action the court may take regarding limiting discovery; that is just too far outside my area of expertise.

Rolotomasii in reply to John P.

John P - great job again. I have a question, could Mike and Marty be considered experts? Typically fact witnesses are excluded from hearing testimony if a party moves for sequestration of the witness and the Court grants such application in its discretion. However, the rules permit for experts to be present for testimony in a general sense if it applies to their specific field and they are being offered in rebuttal.

I do not see how any Court would exclude them from being present or offering their own testimony regarding the manner in which these "contracts" are obtained.

Anyway, your analysis yesterday was spot on and today you did not disappoint. I really look forward to you posts everyday.

John P. in reply to Rolotomasii

Attorneys, particularly T1kk and Shockenawd, who have fought the Church in court, are the definitive sources for answers to your question. My read is that Mike & Marty are not likely to appear as witnesses in any form, since they left the Church before Debbie signed the agreement in 2007, and they were in California in a different part of the organization from FSO anyway. So they would be unlikely to be fact witnesses with direct knowledge of the events giving rise to this case.

As far as being expert witnesses, one need only read their postings on Marty's blog to see that their prior writings are hardly scientific or objective. Good expert witnesses would people like author Janet Reitman or academic David Touretzky, who attempt to provide a neutral treatment of issues with the Church, even as they expose its evil deeds. I doubt that expert witnesses would be used here. I suspect that the defense strategy is to get enough depositions to trap Church employees in lies and thus get their case to crumble. As the old joke goes, "How do you know a Scientologist is lying? His lips are moving."

Schockenawd

At every Scientology-related deposition I ever attended, the Scientology lawyer who appeared was always accompanied by a "paralegal" (which was apparently the code word for "OSA drone"). So you'd have, say, Rick Moxon there, glaring and snarking at the deponent, and some sidekick whose only apparent purpose in being there was to carry boxes and sit next to Moxon, also glaring and snarking at the deponent. Hell, if an 18-year-old kid (whatever happened to Aron Mason... anyone?) can be a temporary "paralegal," Rathbun and Rinder can surely wear that hat for a day or two.

John P.

It would be unwise to assume Mr. Spencer is incompetent. This is sort of like poker: a player may not have a strong hand at the moment, but the fact that he doesn't have a strong hand doesn't mean he's a bad poker player. In fact, if he ends up winning the pot, a weak hand makes him a great poker player because it shows he's a master at bluffing.

I don't think Mr. Spencer has been dealt a strong hand in the facts of the case. Realistically, it's a case that could go either way, and probably would ultimately go against his client given infinite time and money on the part of the defense. Mr. Spencer is weighed down by a series of crazy demands from his client who is trying to micro-manage him. But don't assume that the silliness in this filing that comes from Miscavige is a function of Mr. Spencer's incompetence. Mr. Jeffery doesn't have a perfect case, either, as much as the readers of this blog would like that to be so.

The plaintiffs certainly knew there would be depositions. Lord knows they have dragged others into enough depositions over their sordid history.

The main objection raised in this filing is that the deposition is scheduled too soon to be practical, a week after they received notice. The Court does not know that the Church will spend any amount of money on moving people around to harass opponents instantly, and that they could easily send one person to a deposition on Monday. They only know what's in the filing.
 
Last edited:

Dilettante

Patron Meritorious
Just me musing here.....

After Mrs. Cook signed her "agreement", she did in fact make several statements about the church, it's 'expansion', the importance of the basics and miscavige. That she did in a favorable manner but she did disclose much on FB and other outlets. They weren't trying to shut her up in ALL that time. :confused2:

Exactly when did she become a bitter, defrocked apostate? After she urged church members to apply policy or was it just prior? :dieslaughing: (You CAN'T blow-we defrocked you!) Let's see that comm-ev on Deb. C'mon. The date on that was.......that's right, they had to scramble to fabricate a da pack on her after the fact.

Per ethics gradients aren't you SUPPOSED to mention the outness to others? :duh:

So following policy gets you sued by the church and disconnected from family, friends and business associates. Poor woman is in purgatory! Stupid ass cult can't even pretend to follow their own goddamn policy. :blush:

Dil
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
Re: Jeffrey Puts CoS in Deeper Doo Doo

This is way cool.

From the end of this blog post:

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

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

>snip dancing gifs, which are also awesome<


Awesomeness in action! So nice to see somebody paying attention, I like this Jeffrey dude and think he'll do well given the facts and angles~ noice!

Cult 0f Foot-bullets will strike again and again :footbullet:
I wonder if the legal team for cult realizes how much of a career-killer they have embroiled themselves in? Just thinking to myself here out loud, but once they have endeared themselves to the Wee Tyrant DM, who in their right minds would want them except other criminals? Well, this may not be a bad thing I suppose from a monetary view, but who would ever trust them if they decide to actually go and do justice/help people?
Cult 'wins', then cult will keep spending their 'voluntary religious donations' on them as retained and bought ass-kissers.
Cult loses and folks will still see them as a bunch of fucks who shilled for a twisted bunch of con artists. Either way~ DERP!

:biggrin:

And oh, where for art thou Toxic-Moxin et al in all this?


Off to store for more butter! :drama:
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Gotta add Jeff Hawkins. :)

Jefferson Hawkins

The Church of Scientology is trying to argue that Debbie's experiences at the Int Base have nothing to do with her state of mind when she signed the documents and are irrelevant, and that what goes on at the Base is a private religious matter.

As someone who has been through Scientology's odious "routing out" process, I can tell you that a person leaving the Sea Organization, and particularly the Int Base, is in a state of desperation and overwhelm from the abusive treatment, and wants only to leave. They are intimidated by being put in a room with Church lawyers, legal staff, and Security Guards. They are allowed no legal representation and are not informed of their rights. They are threatened with an SP declare and disconnection from their friends and family if they don't play nice. So they sign anything to escape. I did. There was a Security Guard waiting to take me back to a detention compound at the Int Base if I balked. The incidents leading up to that moment of signing have EVERYTHING to do with the validity of that contract. It establishes a pattern of duress, leading up to and including the moment of signing.

I was interested to see the wording "invade the personal. constitutional and privacy rights of the plaintiff Church and its parishioners." As if her abuse at the hands of Scientology was "a private matter," with no bearing on the contract she signed. I once had a Church lawyer suggest to me that my detailed descriptions of how David Miscavige beat me up on five separate occasions (in my book Counterfeit Dreams) was "a violation of Mr. Miscavige's right to privacy." Really? So Scientology's leaders have the right to beat, torture and imprison people in their own little fiefdom and that's "a private matter"? Good luck arguing that one in court.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Ah, time has come for the C o $ at the same time to be embroiled in far more lawsuits than they handle.

Ah, gee, ain't that exactly what the cult did to CAN ? Broke 'em with lots and lots of lawsuits.

Sooner or later it has to end up with not your best lawyers in the important cases.

Once knee deep in lawyers the cult is now starting to get thin on competent lawyers.

That once powerful beast is verging on getting slaughted.

Ain't this sooooooooooooooo grand !
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Just me musing here.....

After Mrs. Cook signed her "agreement", she did in fact make several statements about the church, it's 'expansion', the importance of the basics and miscavige. That she did in a favorable manner but she did disclose much on FB and other outlets. They weren't trying to shut her up in ALL that time. :confused2:

Exactly when did she become a bitter, defrocked apostate? After she urged church members to apply policy or was it just prior? :dieslaughing: (You CAN'T blow-we defrocked you!) Let's see that comm-ev on Deb. C'mon. The date on that was.......that's right, they had to scramble to fabricate a da pack on her after the fact.

Per ethics gradients aren't you SUPPOSED to mention the outness to others? :duh:

So following policy gets you sued by the church and disconnected from family, friends and business associates. Poor woman is in purgatory! Stupid ass cult can't even pretend to follow their own goddamn policy. :blush:

Dil

Please send details to Mr Jefferys. They are under much time constraint
and niether he or Debbie has the great knowledge of CO$ history that we have here. It may be useful or not. A heads uop is great, and if they already know no problemo. :)
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Contract Ratification

I had to do some research on this word "ratify" that Spencer and the Church is using.

They are saying that if Debbie Cook was under duress at the time of the signing she "ratified" the contract by her actions of "speaking good about the Church" at some time since, hnce those statements by Debbie Cook praising the Pope on a Rope and the great expansion that were put on the internet by the Church

That is why they are saying that she was not under duress all this time from the signing just because of those statement she said.

Jeffrey arguent I gather would show that she made thsoe statements under some type of duress. The Church will counter that there was noting manifesting that showed she was under duress. Of course we know that she was under intense pressure even after she was gone because we kow how the Church work especially when they know they you know about the crimes that were committed at Int Base.

It is more grabbing at straws.

It's kind of like saying "you were never bullied because you never spoke up"

And interestingly enough, bullying is big news in the world today.

Hell it's even as bad as saying "you were never raped because you never fought off the perpetrator"

It is so sad and sick, sad and sick at the same time.

It is even worse than sad and sick. maybe after a few inutes of relaxation I will have more words than such a banal description of "sad and sorry".

Rd00
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Re: Contract Ratification

I had to do some research on this word "ratify" that Spencer and the Church is using.

They are saying that if Debbie Cook was under duress at the time of the signing she "ratified" the contract by her actions of "speaking good about the Church" at some time since, hnce those statements by Debbie Cook praising the Pope on a Rope and the great expansion that were put on the internet by the Church

That is why they are saying that she was not under duress all this time from the signing just because of those statement she said.

Jeffrey arguent I gather would show that she made thsoe statements under some type of duress. The Church will counter that there was noting manifesting that showed she was under duress. Of course we know that she was under intense pressure even after she was gone because we kow how the Church work especially when they know they you know about the crimes that were committed at Int Base.

It is more grabbing at straws.

It's kind of like saying "you were never bullied because you never spoke up"

And interestingly enough, bullying is big news in the world today.

Hell it's even as bad as saying "you were never raped because you never fought off the perpetrator"

It is so sad and sick, sad and sick at the same time.

It is even worse than sad and sick. maybe after a few inutes of relaxation I will have more words than such a banal description of "sad and sorry".

Rd00

The way I read it is that Debbie and Wayne were not only under duress immediately before signing the NDA but also for years afterwards. The SP Times details the level of fear Debbie was operating under:

. . . But Jeffrey, Cook's attorney, this week filed a motion, saying the church is rushing things.

It is "very, very rare" for a plaintiff to move for summary judgment in the first month of a case, he said. Matters are far from clear cut, he said, and the church has yet to appear for a deposition or provide evidence that has been subpoenaed.

"It's a last-gasp attempt to adjudicate the case without having to do any discovery and reveal any stuff," Jeffrey said.

He said Cook stayed silent for four years not because she accepted the terms of the contract but because she remained under church duress . . .
 

tikk

Patron with Honors
Re: Contract Ratification

I had to do some research on this word "ratify" that Spencer and the Church is using.

They are saying that if Debbie Cook was under duress at the time of the signing she "ratified" the contract by her actions of "speaking good about the Church" at some time since, hnce those statements by Debbie Cook praising the Pope on a Rope and the great expansion that were put on the internet by the Church

That is why they are saying that she was not under duress all this time from the signing just because of those statement she said.

Jeffrey arguent I gather would show that she made thsoe statements under some type of duress. The Church will counter that there was noting manifesting that showed she was under duress. Of course we know that she was under intense pressure even after she was gone because we kow how the Church work especially when they know they you know about the crimes that were committed at Int Base.

It is more grabbing at straws.

It's kind of like saying "you were never bullied because you never spoke up"

And interestingly enough, bullying is big news in the world today.

Hell it's even as bad as saying "you were never raped because you never fought off the perpetrator"

It is so sad and sick, sad and sick at the same time.

It is even worse than sad and sick. maybe after a few inutes of relaxation I will have more words than such a banal description of "sad and sorry".

Rd00

Ratification simply means that if you are a party to a voidable contract, which means a defective contract that you have the option to avoid, will nevertheless be held valid if the basis for the defect (e.g., underage, mental impairment, duress, undue influence, mistake) passes, and you retain the benefit of contract. A void contract cannot be ratified (e.g., mutual mistake, agreement to commit an illegal act, incompetent party), because it is technically not a contract.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Re: Contract Ratification

Isn't that a key point here Tikk, that the "underage,mental impairment, duress, undue influence, mistake", passes? I htink they have a good case that it never passed. The church was very quick to go after Debbie for the email.
Ratification simply means that if you are a party to a voidable contract, which means a defective contract that you have the option to avoid, will nevertheless be held valid if the basis for the defect (e.g., underage, mental impairment, duress, undue influence, mistake) passes, and you retain the benefit of contract. A void contract cannot be ratified (e.g., mutual mistake, agreement to commit an illegal act, incompetent party), because it is technically not a contract.
 
Top