Lawsuit - I Never Abandoned Suri

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
So did this poster's donations as a Scientologist NOT help to fund the disconnection of others from their children, or are only Tom Cruise's donations used for that purpose? I just find that line of argument hypocritical. We were nearly ALL Scientologists.

I mean, I am sorry about the disconnection from that poster's daughter. Of course I am. However, it really has nothing to do with the facts of the case. Claiming that a parent abandoned a child when they haven't is a shitty thing to do both to the parent and the child - and that's what the case is about.

I can understand the schadenfreude about the negative publicity for Scientology's "number two in command" and the positive aspects of Scientology being further exposed and the fact that Cruise himself has been making use of Scientology black PR and fair-gaming tech reinforces what he has become under their tutelage. But it doesn't change the fact that using a child's picture in that way while announcing her parent has abandoned her knowing it's a lie and just to sell magazines is a really, really, really shitty thing to do - and the people who do it are no better than the people they criticise.

The poster did address the facts of the case in his first sentence (and agreed with you):


"I do not think Tom Cruise "abandoned" his daughter. I think that assertion is despicable."
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Re: Lawsuit - I Never Abandoned Suri - Deposition - A Moment of Levity

Care for a quick, well-intentioned moment of levity in this serious and occasionally confounding thread that's only a slight derail?

If you've read the deposition excerpts and thought, 'Such terrible grammar! Incomplete thoughts! What an idiot!' --- have a laugh at my expense.

When I was 11, I wrote a fictionalized story based upon a true-life slumber party held at a friend's home.
I tore through the house after I'd finished and demanded the story be read and critiqued - NOW.
Two of my older brothers read it - quickly, while my foot was tap-tap-tapping -- and both declared it a failure.
Outraged, I shrieked about how it had real characters, a good plot, a twist ending, and excellent dialogue.

They led me to the kitchen, sat me down, poured 3 bowls of cereal for us to eat and turned-on a recorder for 5-6 minutes.
In that time, we three siblings spoke to each other and, when Mom came in, we talked to/with her, too.
My brother hit the 'stop' button and told me to transcribe the recording.
(Shut UP! I was eleven, don't skip ahead!)

I wrote down everything that was said, wrapped each speaker's words in quotation marks and stormed back to the kitchen.
Both brothers reviewed it and gave me the look older brothers have that just RUINS everything and it's NOT FAIR!
On paper, we looked like thoughtless, witless, rambling fools. As if English were still somewhere on the other side of town --with no plans to move.

Real written dialogue can't look any other way on paper because there are no facial cues & nods & shrugs & eye rolls & blushes & such to exchange between the 'players' with only ink-on-paper words.

So, no, I don't think Tom Cruise's deposition makes him look incapable of communicating in his native language. His words on those pages don't make him a fool in my estimation.

His sustained, willful ignorance as regards the abusive practices and policies of Co$?
That's more than mere foolishness, imo; that's somewhere between irresponsible at best, and willfully reckless, at worst.
And we don't even have all of the relevant facts yet...so those subjective parameters may well change.

But we'll get more facts with more depositions, and court testimony, and trials, and news stories, and blog sites, and...here at ESMB, too.:)
Because Co$ and all of its members -- celebs, staff, sea org, public -- are just people, most of which are capable of telling their truth(s).
I think many of them want to do just that.


JB - Less of a brat than when I was 11, although it's Thanksgiving at my house, AGAIN, so... no promises. Brat happens. :coolwink:


JB, you are really becoming one of my favorite posters. :biglove:
 
Amen. There are different situations for different people as far as disconnection is concerned.

And a person does not even need to be an SP to get disconnected from their family.

Honestly what Tom Cruise is doing is perfectly normal for a Scn family. My mother did the same. All of ones attention is on work, while at work, and nothing else. family is forgotten about. It is a form of disconnection, its just not called that. It is common and normal in Scn to do this. You are working on something for your third dynamic, and the second dynamic is on hold.

To be honest, probably other lines of work are the same, disrelated to Scn. Its just the topic here concerns Scn and TCs actions versus beliefs.

------------------

ThetanExterior you were lucky to be able to see your child even when the mother was SP declared. Many couldn't, or didn't. You probably kind of slid under the radar. If it had come up to the right execs, they may have disallowed it, but it looks like it did not and you were one of the lucky ones.

------------------

Another point: Did Katie publicly leave Scn? I have seen nothing indicating that. She should/would not be considered an SP unless she had PUBLICLY left. Seems like she had quietly left. But of course, didn't Nicole Kidman quietly leave too? Hmmm....

So many shades of grey.....


----------

Suri, as a child, would not ever be considered/treated as an SP because she has not yet been a die-hard Scientologist. If she becomes a die-hard Scientologist and THEN publicly leaves, she will be SP and disconnected from, just like the rest of the world. Until then, even if she does not want Scn or disagrees with it, she would not be SP material.

And...
I am channelling DM right now and all I know is that when I apply tech and policy I see tsunamis of Entheta on the internet, and there is often the little thetan suri right in the middle of it. That being has picked up a body from Katie to help Katie to go after Tom. Suri is responsible for so much of the entheta. This is different to non celeb kids who do not commit overts on scientology by picking up a meat body from a celebrity who married scientology's best ever 4th dynamic super stat achiever. This is what suri is doing. See what happens anytime she appears with Tom? There is entheta and bad PR about scientology. She is an SP. She is caving in TC and even caused him to go into incoherent babbling in the courtroom WHILE DEFENDING scientology. It's all her fault. She is the WHY. And so is Katie. And Kaitie's father. There is supposed to be ONE, but here we are looking at different SITS, so there is a WHY and a WHO for each SIT. If anyone thinks this is off policy, go to cramming.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader

The poster did address the facts of the case in his first sentence (and agreed with you):

Yes, I know that and I appreciate it. I also really feel for him about being disconnected from his daughter. I just feel that when we're all in we all support the same institution and the same practices. We all promote it and serve it to the best of our sphere of influence. I don't really think we can blame anyone else for our own decisions - whether in regard to joining or what we choose to do while we're in there.

Cruise and the other celebrities have served to glamourise Scientology but they have also served to ridicule it. They have donated large sums of money, but generally speaking WAY less than the whales. If you are going to use that logic then the whales are guilty, present and past - including the South African ones who've just left - the celebrities are guilty, present and past - Larry Anderson, Jason Beghe, Nazanin Boniadi, Leah Remini - and the rank and file are guilty present and past - including ourselves.

One day Cruise will be out and like Leah Remini or any other ex, he'll be struggling to make sense of what happened to his world - his values, his gullibility, the personal and professional price he has paid for supporting it. Most of all losing Nicole, who was, I think, probably his greatest love.
 

Jump

Operating teatime
Yes, I know that and I appreciate it. I also really feel for him about being disconnected from his daughter. I just feel that when we're all in we all support the same institution and the same practices. We all promote it and serve it to the best of our sphere of influence. I don't really think we can blame anyone else for our own decisions - whether in regard to joining or what we choose to do while we're in there.

Cruise and the other celebrities have served to glamourise Scientology but they have also served to ridicule it. They have donated large sums of money, but generally speaking WAY less than the whales. If you are going to use that logic then the whales are guilty, present and past - including the South African ones who've just left - the celebrities are guilty, present and past - Larry Anderson, Jason Beghe, Nazanin Boniadi, Leah Remini - and the rank and file are guilty present and past - including ourselves.

One day Cruise will be out and like Leah Remini or any other ex, he'll be struggling to make sense of what happened to his world - his values, his gullibility, the personal and professional price he has paid for supporting it. Most of all losing Nicole, who was, I think, probably his greatest love.


Agree. The people who have opened their eyes to the internet or to their own experience and walked away have made some measure of restitution or contrition by doing so. We know they were all both victims and perpetrators in varying degrees.

But at this moment .. Tom Cruise -

Wake up!!!!
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Agree. The people who have opened their eyes to the internet or to their own experience and walked away have made some measure of restitution or contrition by doing so. We know they were all both victims and perpetrators in varying degrees.

But at this moment .. Tom Cruise -

Wake up!!!!

Yes! Totally, Jump.

But I know I am projecting too much on this topic, as well as just that feeling of empathy like I can't stop imagining "what if it happened to me."

I did have one of those trashy mags want to do a story on me around the time of the TomKat divorce, and with all I shared about my personal pain and all the fodder they had to use on the cult, all they could come up with was to go after me and how I was such a bad parent and Katie was so good for escaping with Suri. Well, I escaped, too, after less years exposing my kids to Scientology than she did. So I would not let them publish.

Fortunately I had not already signed the papers because I was overseas at the time and they had to be posted. So I still think the people responsible for these stories are often lowlifes who will walk over any warm body to get their story - even if it's a small child who has just had her family break up. Sometimes they're just as much a part of the "She over there, those pink legs sticking out didn't like me" brigade as Hubbard.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Re: Lawsuit - I Never Abandoned Suri - Deposition - A Moment of Levity

JB, you are really becoming one of my favorite posters. :biglove:

Thank you, Lulu Belle.
I'll be certain to recall your kind words and those who've thanked/liked/lol'd when that kitchen transcription is hauled out -- once again, conveniently located in Mom's purse -- and read aloud by 4* of my brothers' children. (*The other 6 have all taken a traitorous turn, lest any be left out.)
Yes, on Thanksgiving Day.
At my house. (Boundaries? What are those?)
Ridicule is a family tradition that's served hot-n-fresh at every holiday, holiday eve, long-weekend, summer vacations, and the odd spare moment.
It's a 'whenever' thing, really. Genetically based, apparently, but nurtured to be sure.
Extended family seven times twice-removed, in-laws, in-laws-of-in-laws, neighbors, friends, wandering pedestrians, the fellow from the line at the post office or the Piggly-Wiggly, that gal you took to prom that time with the nice hair but that dress had those poofy bows, 'member her?
Yep, it breathes, and it's invited to play 'whack-a-brat' and ridicule JB.
It's tradition!

It's a personal tradition, given the above, that the pantry here is always fully stocked with: 12-pack cases of silly string, 5 types of super-soaker water pistols, glitter that just does NOT come out of hair for DAYS, Sharpie markers, ('cause they gotta sleep some time, baby; they're OLD!) notched 18" rulers to launch rubber bands from around every corner or seat back, toilet paper with inappropriate sketches of different brothers' faces on the first 50 sheets, and a wide selection of disgustingly graphic ice trays which never fail to get the vein in Mom's neck to pulse outwards a full 1/2 - at 180 bpm. <---Personal best, btw. New goal: 200 bpm!

Enough derailing - just wanted to say thanks for letting a 'never-in' guest participate with such good, brave people. :hattip:

JB
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Re: Lawsuit - I Never Abandoned Suri - Deposition - A Moment of Levity

Thank you, Lulu Belle.
I'll be certain to recall your kind words and those who've thanked/liked/lol'd when that kitchen transcription is hauled out -- once again, conveniently located in Mom's purse -- and read aloud by 4* of my brothers' children. (*The other 6 have all taken a traitorous turn, lest any be left out.)
Yes, on Thanksgiving Day.
At my house. (Boundaries? What are those?)
Ridicule is a family tradition that's served hot-n-fresh at every holiday, holiday eve, long-weekend, summer vacations, and the odd spare moment.
It's a 'whenever' thing, really. Genetically based, apparently, but nurtured to be sure.
Extended family seven times twice-removed, in-laws, in-laws-of-in-laws, neighbors, friends, wandering pedestrians, the fellow from the line at the post office or the Piggly-Wiggly, that gal you took to prom that time with the nice hair but that dress had those poofy bows, 'member her?
Yep, it breathes, and it's invited to play 'whack-a-brat' and ridicule JB.
It's tradition!

It's a personal tradition, given the above, that the pantry here is always fully stocked with: 12-pack cases of silly string, 5 types of super-soaker water pistols, glitter that just does NOT come out of hair for DAYS, Sharpie markers, ('cause they gotta sleep some time, baby; they're OLD!) notched 18" rulers to launch rubber bands from around every corner or seat back, toilet paper with inappropriate sketches of different brothers' faces on the first 50 sheets, and a wide selection of disgustingly graphic ice trays which never fail to get the vein in Mom's neck to pulse outwards a full 1/2 - at 180 bpm. <---Personal best, btw. New goal: 200 bpm!

Enough derailing - just wanted to say thanks for letting a 'never-in' guest participate with such good, brave people. :hattip:

JB

God, I LOVE your family, JB! You lot are awesome! And I agree with Lulu Belle - you are definitely one of my favourite posters.

I got to go to one thanksgiving here the first year I visited America, but this time I guess I will be by myself for it. I was hoping to get back to New Hampshire in time for that, maybe, and at least so Denise and I could have Christmas together, and still hoping I'll get there by then. But I think thanksgiving is a lovely tradition, that whole idea of gratitude really that Sweetness and Light, and Sallydannce and FreeBeing have talked of so often.

I will think of you sleeping lightly in case of marker attack! Lol! I love that so much!

Thanks for all that you do here. You really are appreciated.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
One day Cruise will be out and like Leah Remini or any other ex, he'll be struggling to make sense of what happened to his world - his values, his gullibility, the personal and professional price he has paid for supporting it. Most of all losing Nicole, who was, I think, probably his greatest love.

I believe that he's still with his greatest love, and that would be Scientology, which is more important to him then any women or child.

A good Scientologist cannot let ones loyalty to family get in the way of saving the universe, especially when one has to live with the consequences of ones actions for trillions of years.

I believe Kevin's characterization of Cruise as a "dumb fuck" was spot on. :thumbsup:

And I'm not hypocritical by saying so because I would characterize myself in the same way when I was in.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
I believe that he's still with his greatest love, and that would be Scientology, which is more important to him then any women or child.

A good Scientologist cannot let ones loyalty to family get in the way of saving the universe, especially when one has to live with the consequences of ones actions for trillions of years.

I believe Kevin's characterization of Cruise as a "dumb fuck" was spot on. :thumbsup:

And I'm not hypocritical by saying so because I would characterize myself in the same way when I was in.

Yeah, I would certainly agree that Cruise is a dumb fuck, and yeah, so was I. I left Scientology because of my kids in the end, just as Katie did, because that love was stronger. My ex-husband left Scientology because his love for me was stronger than his loyalty to Scientology. I started a thread back then with a survey saying "Who would Cruise choose?" but only two people ever voted - me and someone else! Oh, I lie - there have been another three votes! I voted then that he would choose Scientology and the other anonymous voter thought he would choose Suri. But these days I truly do think he would tell the cult to shove it if they tried to make him choose between them and her. I really do think he loves her more than them. But we shall see. I think there will be a lot of pressure brought to bear on him by Scientology to make this go away - the same as for his divorce - so I will know which he chooses by whether he stays the course. If Suri is more important to him he will see the case through is my prediction.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
Tom Cruise Compares His Job to a Tour in Afghanistan, Says Suri Is No Longer Practicing Scientology

Think being an Olympic sprinter or a soldier fighting the war in Afghanistan have it rough? According to Tom Cruise, his job as an actor is just as difficult as both of those occupations.

In a September deposition obtained by TMZ.com, Cruise compared shooting on location to serving a tour in Afghanistan. "That's what it feels like. And certainly on this last movie, it was brutal. It was brutal." The 51-year-old movie star then went on to claim that the physical training he does for his films are harder than training for the Olympics. "There is difficult physical stamina and preparation. Sometimes I've spent months, a year, and sometimes two years preparing for a single film," he said. "A sprinter for the Olympics, they only have to run two races a day. When I'm shooting, I could potentially have to run 30, 40 races a day, day after day."

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Tom-Cruise-Lawsuit-Deposition-1073187.aspx
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Tom Cruise Compares His Job to a Tour in Afghanistan, Says Suri Is No Longer Practicing Scientology

Think being an Olympic sprinter or a soldier fighting the war in Afghanistan have it rough? According to Tom Cruise, his job as an actor is just as difficult as both of those occupations.

In a September deposition obtained by TMZ.com, Cruise compared shooting on location to serving a tour in Afghanistan.
"That's what it feels like. And certainly on this last movie, it was brutal. It was brutal."

The 51-year-old movie star then went on to claim that the physical training he does for his films are harder than training for the Olympics. "There is difficult physical stamina and preparation. Sometimes I've spent months, a year, and sometimes two years preparing for a single film," he said. "A sprinter for the Olympics, they only have to run two races a day. When I'm shooting, I could potentially have to run 30, 40 races a day, day after day."

http://www.tvguide.com/News/Tom-Cruise-Lawsuit-Deposition-1073187.aspx

Cover Headline: "Abandoned By Daddy"
In Touch
magazine wrote that Suri felt abandoned - but you had to read the entire article.
Not that she was abandoned or had actually been abandoned.

Cover Headline: "Tom Cruise Compares His Job To A Tour In Afghanistan"
Tom Cruise stated that shooting an action film feels like serving a tour of military service in Afghanistan - but you have to read the whole deposition.
Not that he did serve or had actually served.

The headline is to grab your attention with 'scandalous' words so you'll buy the magazine and 'dig deeper' yourself.

And why no definitions of 'abandon' yet?
Here's one plucked from the first site that Google gave:

Abandon (verb): give up completely (a course of action, a practice, or a way of thinking).

Did TC give up completely, for 44 days in a row, his practice of being photographed with Suri?

He gave sworn deposition testimony that prior to the divorce notice in June 2012, from January 2011 through May 2012, the most he spent apart from Suri was one or two days at a time.
That's 486 consecutive days in a row of one practice -- being with Suri almost every day.
During those 486 days - January 1, 2011 through May 1, 2012 -- take a look at how many photos are on the net w/TC & Suri. Wow!

The divorce hits the news, the media explodes, and there's 44 days of no Tom & Suri photos.
That doesn't mean he wasn't a good dad.
That same sudden change of face-time w/dad happens in 70% or higher of divorce cases during the initial divorce 'kaboom' period, right?

But, what's at issue for the court room is the general definition of 'abandon' and the legal definition of 'actual malice'.
Not the legal definition of 'abandon' - Bauer Publishing is in the publishing business - they print stories for everyday people to read using everyday definitions. [They did not write,for example: TC Guilty Of Felony Child Abandonment.]
Tom Cruise's attorneys have to prove, in court, that Bauer Publishing had 'actual malice' when they published their stories.

I don't think this case was filed because of the word 'abandoned'. I do think that word hurt Tom Cruise's feelings.

I think the lawsuit was filed because directly beneath the word 'abandoned' for all to see was a question that no self-respecting member of Co$/scientology has EVER wanted asked and answered by people over whom they have no leverage - 'the public-at-large'.
Sadly, he doesn't want to ask and answer this question of himself, or he cannot ask and answer this question of himself.
David Miscavige in Co$ asks this question, though, doesn't he? About other people's children? Spouses? Parents? He accepts only one answer: Yes.

"Has he chosen Scientology over Suri for good?" <---That's the question.

People who already answered that very question in a way that still brings pain really can answer it the right way now.
That's what I hope the media and decent people have the good sense to spread around.
People can, and do, change their own mind. It's healthy. And there's caek!

JB
 
Last edited:

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
Cover Headline: "Abandoned By Daddy"
In Touch
magazine wrote that Suri felt abandoned - but you had to read the entire article.
Not that she was abandoned or had actually been abandoned.

Cover Headline: "Tom Cruise Compares His Job To A Tour In Afghanistan"
Tom Cruise stated that shooting an action film feels like serving a tour of military service in Afghanistan - but you have to read the whole deposition.
Not that he did serve or had actually served.

The headline is to grab your attention with 'scandalous' words so you'll buy the magazine and 'dig deeper' yourself.

And why no definitions of 'abandon' yet?
Here's one plucked from the first site that Google gave:

Abandon (verb): give up completely (a course of action, a practice, or a way of thinking).

Did TC give up completely, for 44 days in a row, his practice of being photographed with Suri?

He gave sworn deposition testimony that prior to the divorce notice in June 2012, from January 2011 through May 2012, the most he spent apart from Suri was one or two days at a time.
That's 486 consecutive days in a row of one practice -- being with Suri almost every day.
During those 486 days - January 1, 2011 through May 1, 2012 -- take a look at how many photos are on the net w/TC & Suri. Wow!

The divorce hits the news, the media explodes, and there's 44 days of no Tom & Suri photos.
That doesn't mean he wasn't a good dad.
That same sudden change of face-time w/dad happens in 70% or higher of divorce cases during the initial divorce 'kaboom' period, right?

But, what's at issue for the court room is the general definition of 'abandon' and the legal definition of 'actual malice'.
Not the legal definition of 'abandon' - Bauer Publishing is in the publishing business - they print stories for everyday people to read using everyday definitions. [They did not write,for example: TC Guilty Of Felony Child Abandonment.]
Tom Cruise's attorneys have to prove, in court, that Bauer Publishing had 'actual malice' when they published their stories.

I don't think this case was filed because of the word 'abandoned'. I do think that word hurt Tom Cruise's feelings.

I think the lawsuit was filed because directly beneath the word 'abandoned' for all to see was a question that no self-respecting member of Co$/scientology has EVER wanted asked and answered by people over whom they have no leverage - 'the public-at-large'.
Sadly, he doesn't want to ask and answer this question of himself, or he cannot ask and answer this question of himself.
David Miscavige in Co$ asks this question, though, doesn't he? About other people's children? Spouses? Parents? He accepts only one answer: Yes.

"Has he chosen Scientology over Suri for good?" <---That's the question.

People who already answered that very question in a way that still brings pain really can answer it the right way now.
That's what I hope the media and decent people have the good sense to spread around.
People can, and do, change their own mind. It's healthy. And there's caek!

JB

I had a situation many years ago which involved the media and my local org.

A local reporter rang the org and asked if he could come and look around to find out about Scientology. I think there had been some bad press about it in the national newspapers and this reporter said he wanted to print a story to show that the local people had nothing to fear from this organization.

Well, the ED of the org contravened LRH Policy and agreed to show the reporter round. (LRH Policy said to never agree to this because the reporter would always write a negative story).

The reporter then came to the org, was shown around, had his questions answered, and he said it had been very enjoyable and he was going to write a good story about Scientology in the local paper.

Now, that particular day my teenage non-Scientologist stepson and his friend were on school vacation and had called into the org because they were bored. They were asked by someone if they'd like to hand out some leaflets at the front door and they eagerly agreed because they thought it would be great fun.

Okay, that sets the scene. So the day arrives when the newspaper is published and the first thing we see is a huge front-page headline: "CHILD SLAVES?". This is accompanied by three photos of these two kids giving out leaflets at the front of the org. Their eyes were blacked-out by the newspaper so as to theoretically conceal their identities.

The reporter had apparently seen these kids, called for a photographer to come and take the photos and then gone back to his office to write the story.

Note the question mark in "CHILD SLAVES?". In other words: "We're not saying they are, we are just asking a question.".

So I do see where Tom Cruise is coming from. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with him to sue the mag but I know how I felt about my stepson being in these photos so I understand how he must have felt. But I think he should maybe have thought about the negative publicity he'd generate for the CofS (but I'm glad he didn't).
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Cover Headline: "Abandoned By Daddy"
In Touch
magazine wrote that Suri felt abandoned - but you had to read the entire article.
Not that she was abandoned or had actually been abandoned.

Cover Headline: "Tom Cruise Compares His Job To A Tour In Afghanistan"
Tom Cruise stated that shooting an action film feels like serving a tour of military service in Afghanistan - but you have to read the whole deposition.
Not that he did serve or had actually served.

The headline is to grab your attention with 'scandalous' words so you'll buy the magazine and 'dig deeper' yourself.

And why no definitions of 'abandon' yet?
Here's one plucked from the first site that Google gave:

Abandon (verb): give up completely (a course of action, a practice, or a way of thinking).

Did TC give up completely, for 44 days in a row, his practice of being photographed with Suri?

He gave sworn deposition testimony that prior to the divorce notice in June 2012, from January 2011 through May 2012, the most he spent apart from Suri was one or two days at a time.
That's 486 consecutive days in a row of one practice -- being with Suri almost every day.
During those 486 days - January 1, 2011 through May 1, 2012 -- take a look at how many photos are on the net w/TC & Suri. Wow!

The divorce hits the news, the media explodes, and there's 44 days of no Tom & Suri photos.
That doesn't mean he wasn't a good dad.
That same sudden change of face-time w/dad happens in 70% or higher of divorce cases during the initial divorce 'kaboom' period, right?

But, what's at issue for the court room is the general definition of 'abandon' and the legal definition of 'actual malice'.
Not the legal definition of 'abandon' - Bauer Publishing is in the publishing business - they print stories for everyday people to read using everyday definitions. [They did not write,for example: TC Guilty Of Felony Child Abandonment.]
Tom Cruise's attorneys have to prove, in court, that Bauer Publishing had 'actual malice' when they published their stories.

I don't think this case was filed because of the word 'abandoned'. I do think that word hurt Tom Cruise's feelings.

I think the lawsuit was filed because directly beneath the word 'abandoned' for all to see was a question that no self-respecting member of Co$/scientology has EVER wanted asked and answered by people over whom they have no leverage - 'the public-at-large'.
Sadly, he doesn't want to ask and answer this question of himself, or he cannot ask and answer this question of himself.
David Miscavige in Co$ asks this question, though, doesn't he? About other people's children? Spouses? Parents? He accepts only one answer: Yes.

"Has he chosen Scientology over Suri for good?" <---That's the question.

People who already answered that very question in a way that still brings pain really can answer it the right way now.
That's what I hope the media and decent people have the good sense to spread around.
People can, and do, change their own mind. It's healthy. And there's caek!

JB

The fact is they made those claims, as claims, that Tom "ABANDONED" Suri, on the front cover. Regardless of whether they made other different claims in the body of the text, they knowingly made claims that falsely represented his position on the cover also knowing that ONLY someone who bought a copy would get the whole picture and realise it was yet another lying headline manufactured to deceive people into buying a copy. The vast MAJORITY of people who saw that statement at the checkout would in fact have NOT bought a copy and read the clarification.

If that isn't malice I don't know what is, except to say that with friends like that you wouldn't need enemies.

And as I have said before, you can THINK you will know how a Scientologist will choose, but you don't KNOW who or what they will choose. How come my husband chose me? He was a Scientologist. How come I chose my kids one day? There were plenty of times when I didn't.

You can pretend to know what's in somebody's heart but you don't know. Scientologists are people too. They bleed and have feelings.

Edit: And so why didn't Nicole "ABANDON" their kids when she moved to Australia? How many days did she not see those kids for? Measuring it by days is ridiculous and bloody insensitive where a divorce is concerned.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
It looks like the 110 days apart is being left alone for the moment, by Tom and Bert - let's talk Nazis!

Tom Cruise and his lawyers have launched an all-out campaign attempting to link magazine publisher, Bauer Media with Nazism and Hitler worship.

The website has done shocking in-depth investigation of how the 51-year-old's counsel turned to this bizarre tactic and how they've done it many times in the past for him and Scientology, Radar Online reported.

The first accusation was made by Cruise's lawyer, Bert Fields in a letter to Bauer attorneys in December, 2012, obtained by the website.

In the letter, Fields wrote that this relentless defaming of Cruise and his Church is less surprising now that it is discovered Bauer's long and disgraceful record of religious hatred and bigotry.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ng-house-with-Nazism/articleshow/25506726.cms
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
The fact is they made those claims, as claims, that Tom "ABANDONED" Suri, on the front cover. Regardless of whether they made other different claims in the body of the text, they knowingly made claims that falsely represented his position on the cover also knowing that ONLY someone who bought a copy would get the whole picture and realise it was yet another lying headline manufactured to deceive people into buying a copy. The vast MAJORITY of people who saw that statement at the checkout would in fact have NOT bought a copy and read the clarification.

If that isn't malice I don't know what is, except to say that with friends like that you wouldn't need enemies.

And as I have said before, you can THINK you will know how a Scientologist will choose, but you don't KNOW who or what they will choose. How come my husband chose me? He was a Scientologist. How come I chose my kids one day? There were plenty of times when I didn't.

You can pretend to know what's in somebody's heart but you don't know. Scientologists are people too. They bleed and have feelings.

Edit: And so why didn't Nicole "ABANDON" their kids when she moved to Australia? How many days did she not see those kids for? Measuring it by days is ridiculous and bloody insensitive where a divorce is concerned.

1. Headline Issue: We do not know whether the 'vast majority' of people bought the magazine because we don't work at Bauer Publishing's sales department and we don't know how many issues were sold. Magazines of this type are sold in supermarkets near the check-out lanes, along with candy bars because they're thought to be 'impulse purchase items'. An impulse to buy/not buy, by definition, implies little actual thought is employed.

2. 'Malice' versus 'Actual Malice': The first is an everyday word with a corresponding everyday definition. Everyone can adjudge for themselves whether InTouch's headline/story appeared due to 'malice' on the part of Bauer Publishing. You think and feel this to be true -- and I don't disagree; a bit of malice seems apparent in the headlines of that issue of that magazine. I think and feel it's also true of 95% of the headlines/stories of ALL magazines sold at the check-out lanes.
But 'actual malice' is a legal phrase with its very own legal definition. The legal definition contains certain elements that must be met - ALL of them - for a Court to decide 'actual malice' is/was present. One of the elements with respect to 'actual malice' that must be proven via evidence is the 'intent' of Bauer Publishing's editorial staff. Not the everyday definition of 'intent' - the legal definition of 'intent'. It's difficult to prove anyone's intent in a court of law, in large part, because it involves looking into the mind/heart of another by examining/scrutinizing actions.

3. 'Think' & 'Know': I don't and can't think like a member of Co$/scientology - never have, never will. What few brain cells I have rub together to generate questions and thoughts and memories - just like everyone else. I do understand, however, that when the question is posed, "Has Person X chosen Person X's relative for good?" the answer demanded of adherents to Co$/scientology is YES. Co$/scientology must come first and before everything else in order to sustain and advance the KSW doctrine and that doctrine is what provides a basis for the upper-echelon mgmt of Co$/scientology to ask that question - and all of their similarly insidious questions -- in the first place.

Anyone who answers that question with a NO does so in violation of Co$/scientology's policies/practices/doctrines. WHY a person would answer YES or NO has never been answered by me in any post I've made in this thread...or any other thread. I do not know why because every person's why is specific to the individual - with 1 or a 1001 reasons to support every 'why' answer. All I can do is support and encourage anyone reading here to freely ask the question as posed by InTouch's headline and freely answer to themselves and for themselves --and then, continue to freely ask/answer more questions of/for themselves.

4. Days: I counted the days because they are at issue in the court case. To ensure my intent was understood, I clarified it by writing that non-custodial parents, usually dads, are often separated from their child(-ren) for a period of time following the 'kaboom' of divorce. You've characterized such as "insensitive" and, with respect, I disagree.

If anything I've ever written here has implied in any way, shape, or form that I don't truly think and feel that people involved with Co$/scientology are people, I apologize to you and everyone here with a sorrowful heart. Scorn or mockery of the people who hold executive-level positions within Co$/scientology is never written about by me with hate or malice, but their actions certainly do foment frustration within and it's expressed as such.

There is a court case and, separately, there is 'life-at-large' -- one is not the other. I've tried to clearly differentiate my thoughts about the former from thoughts/feelings about the latter.

JB
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
1. Headline Issue: We do not know whether the 'vast majority' of people bought the magazine because we don't work at Bauer Publishing's sales department and we don't know how many issues were sold. Magazines of this type are sold in supermarkets near the check-out lanes, along with candy bars because they're thought to be 'impulse purchase items'. An impulse to buy/not buy, by definition, implies little actual thought is employed.

2. 'Malice' versus 'Actual Malice': The first is an everyday word with a corresponding everyday definition. Everyone can adjudge for themselves whether InTouch's headline/story appeared due to 'malice' on the part of Bauer Publishing. You think and feel this to be true -- and I don't disagree; a bit of malice seems apparent in the headlines of that issue of that magazine. I think and feel it's also true of 95% of the headlines/stories of ALL magazines sold at the check-out lanes.
But 'actual malice' is a legal phrase with its very own legal definition. The legal definition contains certain elements that must be met - ALL of them - for a Court to decide 'actual malice' is/was present. One of the elements with respect to 'actual malice' that must be proven via evidence is the 'intent' of Bauer Publishing's editorial staff. Not the everyday definition of 'intent' - the legal definition of 'intent'. It's difficult to prove anyone's intent in a court of law, in large part, because it involves looking into the mind/heart of another by examining/scrutinizing actions.

3. 'Think' & 'Know': I don't and can't think like a member of Co$/scientology - never have, never will. What few brain cells I have rub together to generate questions and thoughts and memories - just like everyone else. I do understand, however, that when the question is posed, "Has Person X chosen Person X's relative for good?" the answer demanded of adherents to Co$/scientology is YES. Co$/scientology must come first and before everything else in order to sustain and advance the KSW doctrine and that doctrine is what provides a basis for the upper-echelon mgmt of Co$/scientology to ask that question - and all of their similarly insidious questions -- in the first place.

Anyone who answers that question with a NO does so in violation of Co$/scientology's policies/practices/doctrines. WHY a person would answer YES or NO has never been answered by me in any post I've made in this thread...or any other thread. I do not know why because every person's why is specific to the individual - with 1 or a 1001 reasons to support every 'why' answer. All I can do is support and encourage anyone reading here to freely ask the question as posed by InTouch's headline and freely answer to themselves and for themselves --and then, continue to freely ask/answer more questions of/for themselves.

4. Days: I counted the days because they are at issue in the court case. To ensure my intent was understood, I clarified it by writing that non-custodial parents, usually dads, are often separated from their child(-ren) for a period of time following the 'kaboom' of divorce. You've characterized such as "insensitive" and, with respect, I disagree.

If anything I've ever written here has implied in any way, shape, or form that I don't truly think and feel that people involved with Co$/scientology are people, I apologize to you and everyone here with a sorrowful heart. Scorn or mockery of the people who hold executive-level positions within Co$/scientology is never written about by me with hate or malice, but their actions certainly do foment frustration within and it's expressed as such.

There is a court case and, separately, there is 'life-at-large' -- one is not the other. I've tried to clearly differentiate my thoughts about the former from thoughts/feelings about the latter.

JB

I thought it was Bauer that counted the days, JB, and that was who I was referring to.

And I don't agree that the days is at issue in the court case - it is what constitutes abandonment. The circumstances of a broken family are as unique as the family itself. It is not days without seeing a child that constitutes actual abandonment or even whether a child "feels" abandoned, it is knowing that they are loved and cared about by both parents. It's the child who waits all year for the promised visit that doesn't happen or goes to the mailbox every birthday hoping for a card - that is abandonment. Many children see a parent every day but feel "abandoned" because the parent takes little interest in their life.

In any case, I've said my piece. I think, if this happened to anyone else people would think it was shitty, but because it happens to Tom Cruise it's okay. That's what I object to. The lack of what I consider fairness in the specific issue itself. But I still don't know how I get myself into the position of defending Tom Cruise. I think people just wish him ill.

I mean if it was Nicole Kidman suing Bauer because they claimed she abandoned Isabella and Connor, would you hold the same opinions? Would you still support Bauer? Or is it the fact that she is an ex-Scientologist and Cruise is a Scientologist that colours whether we think it is right or wrong?

For me these are really important questions, and I'm sorry if people are uncomfortable with me posing them - I'm sorry to rain on the parade. I mean honestly, I'm pretty much the only person here who takes this position and it's not a lot of fun for me to take this ground frankly.

I think very highly of you - that hasn't changed despite how passionately I feel on this subject. I have already explained why this situation strikes a number of personal chords. Well, it just does. I hope you will just accept that I like you and care about you and feel strongly the opposite way. Please don't take my posts the wrong way. Please.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
Here's what I think of Tom in this court case.

h6z4.jpg
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
I thought it was Bauer that counted the days, JB, and that was who I was referring to.

And I don't agree that the days is at issue in the court case - it is what constitutes abandonment. The circumstances of a broken family are as unique as the family itself. It is not days without seeing a child that constitutes actual abandonment or even whether a child "feels" abandoned, it is knowing that they are loved and cared about by both parents. It's the child who waits all year for the promised visit that doesn't happen or goes to the mailbox every birthday hoping for a card - that is abandonment. Many children see a parent every day but feel "abandoned" because the parent takes little interest in their life.

In any case, I've said my piece. I think, if this happened to anyone else people would think it was shitty, but because it happens to Tom Cruise it's okay. That's what I object to. The lack of what I consider fairness in the specific issue itself. But I still don't know how I get myself into the position of defending Tom Cruise. I think people just wish him ill.

I mean if it was Nicole Kidman suing Bauer because they claimed she abandoned Isabella and Connor, would you hold the same opinions? Would you still support Bauer? Or is it the fact that she is an ex-Scientologist and Cruise is a Scientologist that colours whether we think it is right or wrong?

For me these are really important questions, and I'm sorry if people are uncomfortable with me posing them - I'm sorry to rain on the parade. I mean honestly, I'm pretty much the only person here who takes this position and it's not a lot of fun for me to take this ground frankly.

I think very highly of you - that hasn't changed despite how passionately I feel on this subject. I have already explained why this situation strikes a number of personal chords. Well, it just does. I hope you will just accept that I like you and care about you and feel strongly the opposite way. Please don't take my posts the wrong way. Please.

1. You've used and kindly shared here your definition of the word 'abandonment' above. Using your definition, no reasonable person could disagree with what you write immediately thereafter. :)

2. If you're asking me specifically re: Nicole Kidman v Bauer...I'm happy to answer. The magazines/newspapers/MSM/bloggers/etc did write that Ms. Kidman had abandoned those children -- and after a period of time passed, they chose the word 'estranged' instead.
My answer is exactly the same for TC & NK: In court, she'd have to prove defamation/false light to a legal standard; in the media, she'd have the right to fight such an allegation in a myriad of ways/methods. She chose not to go to court, but she has employed a number of different media-centric tactics that have worked to her own satisfaction. (Not mine, since I'd very much like her to confirm or deny whether the Co$ disconnection + 'fair game' policies were employed in her post-divorce situation.)
Tom Cruise chose to go to court...and his media-centric tactics may/may not yet meet his own expectations.

I've never addressed your personal situation/experience in any of the posts on this thread, nor will I.

I have sought to save folks a few steps of effort by providing internet-obtained generalized legal information, and am glad it helps to inform/educate, and nothing more.

JB
 
Top