Nightline's Scientology "Exclusive": What was Exclusive About It, Exactly?

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/scientology_nightline_exclusive.php


Nightline's Scientology "Exclusive": What was Exclusive About It, Exactly?

​I had a strange and powerful case of déjà vu last night while watching Nightline's interview with Debbie Cook as she talked about being held in "the Hole" at Scientology's international base in California, where executives who fall out of favor with church leader David Miscavige are sent to rot in an office-prison for weeks, months, even years at a time.

Well, OK, it wasn't really déjà vu I was experiencing. Which fancy French term do you use when you're seeing a news organization claim it has an "EXCLUSIVE" on an interview that quite a few of us other journalists have already heard numerous times before?
I don't know. Anyone out there good with French? Anyone know how to say "cringeworthy mainstream media epic fail"?

OK, I don't want to sound too harsh. I want to make it very clear that it is thrilling to see Debbie Cook taken seriously by a national news platform with such a large audience. Her story reached millions yesterday as it appeared on both Good Morning America and Nightline.

But for those of us who have been covering Debbie Cook as a breaking story since the first few minutes of 2012, it was maddening to see the way Nightline reported her story yesterday from what could only be characterized as abject fear.

ABC appeared so terrified of Scientology's litigious reputation, it not only allowed the church to hurl unsworn smears of her character in large quantities, but more egregiously, it failed to give any indication that Cook is only the latest of several former executives to come forward and describe the same exact allegations of abuse inside the church.

Cook came off last night the same way she did in a Bexar County, Texas courtroom on February 9: credible, factual, and unflappable. But ABC seemed to go out of its way to make her sound like a lone voice crying out about abuses without any kind of previous corroboration.

ABC had no excuse for presenting Cook's allegations without any kind of larger perspective or history: It's been nearly three years since Tom Tobin and Joe Childs exposed the horrors of "the Hole" in their explosive series, "The Truth Rundown" at the St. Petersburg Times (now Tampa Bay Times).

Janet Reitman also wrote about "the Hole" in her book Inside Scientology, published last summer. And Marc Headley wrote about the horrors of the Int Base in his escape narrative Blown for Good, which came out in 2009.

But even if we give Nightline the benefit of the doubt and assume that, as a typical view-from-nowhere national television program that can't deign to admit that it actually gets its story ideas from newspapers, magazines, and -- heaven forbid -- blogs, we still can't let Nightline off the hook on this one.

(read the rest at VV)
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
One of the best things about this article is this posted comment....

John P.
moderator.png


Some of the details of Story #2 suggest that Mr. Jeffery is trying to drive a wedge between Mr. Spencer and the Church of Scientology, to remind Mr. Spencer that the risk of long-term damage to his reputation is not worth the money he's getting. And here's why he might just succeed:

Lawyers have to work for many years in a community of lawyers. They often have to work collaboratively with opposing counsel to hammer out settlements. If you have a reputation for sleaze, or for being obnoxious and unpleasant, other attorneys will not be as willing to work constructively, which will ultimately hurt your ability to represent your clients, and to get more work from them. Repeat business is everything in corporate civil litigation.

Spencer has to be having doubts about taking the case if his clients are stalking opposing counsel. When the word gets around the courthouse gossip mill that his clients are engaging in unprecedented sleaze and intimidation of fellow attorneys merely for representing the client, that will definitely cause people to think twice about dealing with him. Any attorney would look at what's happening to Mr. Jeffery and think, "that could be me."

But the sleaze level of his clients by itself will not be enough to get Mr. Spencer to withdraw from the case. Instead, I'd focus on what you pointed out: Mr. Canann argued in front of the judge that his clients couldn't produce evidence because it was too much of a burden (we'll ignore the implication that this is because there are tens of thousands of videos of ex-Sea Org members signing agreements that they would have to search through to find Debbie's). But then one of the Church's lawyers was carrying the very same video that he had been told was impossible to produce when it came time to for them to make their case.

Failing to produce relevant evidence when demanded by opposing counsel is a very serious offense -- it is the foundation of trust that the American civil litigation system is built on. And no attorney of any standing, no matter how much they are paid, would be comfortable with their client intentionally or knowingly failing to produce a key piece of evidence. So Mr. Canann goes in front of a judge, believing that his client is telling the truth about the video, and is blindsided almost immediately by the client's other lawyers. The judge cannot help but have noticed that Mr. Canann was made into a liar. While I'm sure the judge realized he was lied to, it still doesn't look good. If losing one's reputation with the other attorneys in town is a career challenge, losing one's credibility with judges is fatal. Messrs. Spencer and Canann have to be thinking about whether they are willing to risk losing credibility with judges that took 20 years to acquire. They have to work with them for another 20 years. Is the money from an out-of-town client who's never going to hire their firm for another case worth it?

Mr. Spencer knows that the video incident meant he lost control of the hearing. Trial attorneys craft trial strategy very carefully and are obsessed with controlling the flow. They fear being surprised more than anything else, because if something unexpected happens, the carefully crafted argument that they are building can collapse instantly. There's usually no backup plan if huge elements of the case collapse. I am sure that after the other attorneys produced the video, he began to fear that they would do something else that would blow up his strategy, if not at the initial (relatively unimportant) hearing, but later in the trial. While I am sure he reamed out the other Scientology counsel after this incident, he has to be losing sleep over what else they might do.

So Mr. Jeffery's e-mail is the beginning of a campaign to remind Scientology lawyers Spencer and Cannan that they could suffer long-term career damage by continuing to deal with Scientology. These short, snarky e-mails are just the tip of the iceberg. As other commenters have pointed out, Mr. Jeffery is the former mayor of his town and is undoubtedly close with the chief of police, and probably with the city attorney. If he continues to be followed, not only would it be easy for him to get the Scientology goons arrested, but he would also be more likely to get the prosecutor to go to trial. At trial, there would be evidence showing exactly who they're working for. That would be a major PR disaster for Mr. Spencer, if he's still representing the Church at that point.

I would watch for any more incidents where Scientology's other lawyers subvert Mr. Spencer, making him look like a fool again in front of the judges and attorneys that he has to work with for the rest of his career. That is the catalyst that would allow him to withdraw from the case immediately and ethically (you can't just withdraw from a case because you've got another case that would pay you more money, for instance). When you couple that with increasing background pressure over the stalking of Mr. Jeffery, that increases the odds greatly that Mr. Spencer would withdraw.

Break out the popcorn! And thanks, Tony, for having the details that show what's really going on. Unlike Nightline...
 

Thrak

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes it doesn't seem that long ago that we had Jennings, Rather, Brokaw, Koppel every night and network news still had a shred of credibility. Now you can barely tell the difference between GMA and Nightline. Sad.
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
The hits just keep on comin'! :yes: :thumbsup:

Great stuff and I hope Tony O has his own back well covered - the scilon attack machine surely has him on its short list.

As far as ABC News goes, what do you expect from an outfit that generally withholds the FULL truth due to political pressure on any story.

With all the show biz muckity-mucks that are scilons, it would be interesting to investigate which of them talk to ABC muckity-mucks.

Or should I say schmuckity-schmucks? :biggrin:
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
They referred to it as an "exclusive" because they actually interviewed Debbie. As far as I know she hasn't granted any one on one interviews with media outlets - besides answering a few questions after the injunction was dismissed. Plenty of media outlets have ran stories about her and showed video clips of her testimony, but she had not actually granted an interview until now. So technically it was an "exclusive interview" - not an exclusive story or a scoop. The fact she revealed nothing new in this exclusive interview didn't stop ABC from promoting the hell out of it.

Unfortunately, for us, all she did was repeat exactly what she said on the stand but that made sense. The cult is still after her for the breach of contract suit. Anything new she would say in public, that isn't already part of a public record via her testimony that was a result of their injunction request, could be used against her in that case.

I'm sure her lawyer carefully vetted questions and explained the limits of what she could reveal to the interviewer. He obviously thinks the media coverage gives her leverage in the case, but he's not gonna let the cult score any points by her going outside of information already on the public record.

Information is going to be tightly controlled surrounding Debbie for awhile, but that's what a good attorney is supposed to do for a client. (Even if it sucks for us and popcorn futures.)
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
The endless battles and personal trials experienced within the war against Scientology or to Keep Scientology Working, the internecine struggles, etc., make endlessly entertaining fodder. I hope that what results is a decision do revoke the charter of the corporations composing the Scientology, incorporated Church. Without that, it's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 

koki

Silver Meritorious Patron
this all is a stage for Ronnie,Pat;and few others- according to my friend....:wink2:
and he knows what he is talking about....:coolwink:
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
KSW Standard L Ron Hubbard Scientology Tech

..

INVESTIGATION BY OUTSIDE SOURCES

Overt investigation of someone or something attacking us by an outside detective agency should be done more often and hang the expense. It's very effective. Often investigation by a private detective has alone closed up an entheta source or a squirrel organisation. In fact at this writing I can't remember a time when it hasn't!

The reason for this is simple. Of twenty-one persons found attacking Dianetics and Scientology with rumours and entheta, eighteen of them under investigation were found to be members of the Communist Party or criminals, usually both. The smell of police or private detectives caused them to fly, to close down, to confess.

Hire them and damn the cost when you need to.

HCO Manual of Justice, 1959, By L Ron Hubbard.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Although I can understand Tony being disgusted at Nightline, I have to say I really think they did a better job than they may be given credit for. We are all looking at this from the point of view of knowedge. We all have so much information about what Miscavige has done and what is going on in COS that this looks tame and flaky to us.

But you have to remember:

1) This show is meant for a public who really knows nothing about this stuff
2) If anyone is in any way interested in learning more, it's just a google away.

This letter in the "comments" section really kind of sums it up.

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


Kim O'Brien
moderator.png


I made my husband stay up last night to watch the interview . Poor bastard has heard me talking about this freak show for a year and trying to put up with me. Since I have been following all of this and knew a bit more behind the story ...i was bummed about the interview and the way it was done. My husband however ...freaked the fuck out . At 7am this morning ..instead of reading news before he went to work ...he read the Truth Rundown.


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


I have to say, I think a reporter from ABC News talking about The Hole on US prime time television is a big fucking deal, no matter how much else they did wrong or not right enough.
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
this all is a stage for Ronnie,Pat;and few others- according to my friend....:wink2:
and he knows what he is talking about....:coolwink:

Ronnie Miscavige? Pat Broker? Is your friend implying these are the bigwigs that Marty and the gang keep hinting will be coming forward this year? You can't make a quip like that and not fill in some blanks.

I actually wondered when they made these references to "some big names" planning to speak out this year IF they meant Debbie or if she was a surprise of sorts. It be great if she was a surprise and they actually have others of note planned for a public reckoning with the furious, tiny one.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
They referred to it as an "exclusive" because they actually interviewed Debbie. As far as I know she hasn't granted any one on one interviews with media outlets - besides answering a few questions after the injunction was dismissed. Plenty of media outlets have ran stories about her and showed video clips of her testimony, but she had not actually granted an interview until now. So technically it was an "exclusive interview" - not an exclusive story or a scoop. The fact she revealed nothing new in this exclusive interview didn't stop ABC from promoting the hell out of it.

Unfortunately, for us, all she did was repeat exactly what she said on the stand but that made sense. The cult is still after her for the breach of contract suit. Anything new she would say in public, that isn't already part of a public record via her testimony that was a result of their injunction request, could be used against her in that case.

I'm sure her lawyer carefully vetted questions and explained the limits of what she could reveal to the interviewer. He obviously thinks the media coverage gives her leverage in the case, but he's not gonna let the cult score any points by her going outside of information already on the public record.

Information is going to be tightly controlled surrounding Debbie for awhile, but that's what a good attorney is supposed to do for a client. (Even if it sucks for us and popcorn futures.)

A Current Affair in Australia had an actual interview with Debbie first.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Some comments

Alanzo 7 hours ago

You have an eagle eye for the things that are important, Tony.

You show how Scientology can corrupt the reporting of ABC's Nightline to the point where they do not even reference their own earlier reporting from the same show 2 years ago. What is normally thought of as a reputable source of information, Nightline, in this case, has been corrupted and coerced to the point of hiding the facts of their own story.

You show how an extremely reputable law firm in San Antonio can be made to be part of a corrupt team of fanatics who engage in surveillance of other attorneys and their clients. Who make idiotic, knee-jerk legal moves in court because they've taken on a rich religious psychotic as a client, and like robots, are doing whatever he tells them to do.

This shows that the Church of Scientology has a corruptive influence on society and on everyone it touches. They do not create a better world. They bring everyone down - including top news organizations and highly reputable law firms.

Scientology does not improve conditions. It destroys the lives and the careers of the people it influences.

And this is proof.

Chuck Beatty 7 hours ago

Tony, your place in reporting on Scientology is unprecedented. You're in the league of unappreciated observers/experts of the Scientology subject now.

ABC and all the networks have for decades covered lots of good recurring themes of Scientology's controversies. I've had to repeatedly consciously try not to be harsh on media for ANY coverage they've done.

The biggest lesson to me of this Debbie Cook turn in history, is that TV seems more willing to report court testimony, and that Debbie is so high profile, and supporter of the Hubbard system, that makes for simple interesting "new" twists to the Hubbard world saga.

We're fighting Hubbard's fiction imagination irrational "reactive" mind which reached it's logical consequences with the "Hole", (Scientology is Hubbard's reactive mind being play acted by his followers.]

I think immediately "chain locker" and why don't you interview Hana Eltringham and Ken Urquhart Tony!

Get some history from the old horses mouths who saw the Hubbard Captain Bligh

.Ken's pro Hubbard, but realistic, and Hana's a straight shooter and my pick as probably the all time best at convincingly relaying Hubbard at his worst in the Sea Org history years.

I'll email you Ken's email and others can give you Hana's email.That would give the solid historical background to Debbie's complaints about the "Hole."

When you interview Ken Urquhart, be sure to get a lot of ex Apollo vets to give you history on Ken, he's had more facetime with Hubbard than probably anyone, excepting the final years of Messengers like the Broekers.

Ken had an adult relationship, was Hubbard butler, and later "LRH Personal Communicator" or "Pers Comm" (nickname), and he's talked a lot, but not been much in print or in media history, and he sure deserves to be heard.

Hana's done loads of TV for over 2 decades. She's brilliant on Hubbard.Both would be so relevant to framing this Debbie Cook "Hole" "news".

Chuck,
the amateur "historian" promoter of Scientology/Hubbard history

MarkStark 7 hours ago

I was disappointed in Nightline too, especially the part where they mentioned their expansion with 25 new Chur... like we're supposed to marvel and respect how prosperous they are, but it might make some people MORE alarmed and aware. They're expanding! Eeeeek! Run for your lives!

They did pick up some of my favorite clips though, like the layers of "wall of accolades" that part to reveal a portrait of crazy L. Ron. I was laughing this morning, just thinking of that image. It's like something out of an Austin Powers movie. At the Scientology gift store, do they sell an L. Ron jack-in-the-box or do Scilons have these portraits of L. Ron hidden in their walls at home like that? They press a button, L. Ron appears, and they hook themselves up to electric soup cans to be rid of their dead alien clusters?

Also Miscavige saying: "We have a monopoly on workable solutions." And a monopoly on monopolies, and they are working on a monopoly on delusion and arrogance. They want to replace everyone's misconceptions and lack of "knowingness" with their "workable" horseshit.

So, although they were remiss in backing up Debbie with other executives' testimonies, the effect for the general audience made it clear that Scientology is wacky, and that they engage in a range of bizarre behaviors from finger-bending childish (what is this, Kindergarten?) to more serious things, long periods of confinement and forced confessions. I thought her story of the big men coming to get her, while she was on the phone with Miscavige was good, as was the secretary slapping. The former emphasized the sadistic pleasure DM gets and the latter shows his total control over his underlings.

Being optimistic, I'd like to think that maybe they deliberately framed the story as one courageous woman's fight against a big, bad, crazy, lying cult. That personalizes it and creates focus.

If one of these Holees could get a hidden video of the actual confession process in The Hole, Scientology could collapse overnight, especially if the things about how much they masturbate and have gay lust for each other, as they shout at the sinner and pour water on them or make them lick the floor. Very ecclesiastical and makes you want to sign up right away!

It made a clear contrast between the credibility of Debbie, and the lies, bizarreness, and superficiality of a power-crazed organization of liars. They showed the shots of the two doublewides and yet the Church doesn't even come up with an explanation of what those buildings are?

Debbie, like Amy Scobee, came off as totally credible to the viewer in what she was saying. Getting that clip of her welcoming everyone to "Mecca" was good too. Mecca! Every good 'merican wants to go to Flag "land base" mecca for a pilgrimage to dead L. Ron.

I'm glad he asked Debbie what they do in The Hole. In court, if it goes to trial, I hope the judge gets a full itinerary of each hour in The Hole.

It's a freakshow, and it is time for more of the public, including public Scilons, to be aware of it.

Kate Bornstein 47 minutes ago

I watched the episode with my girlfriend, who's only somewhat knowledgable about all the stuff that's been going on scientologically. She said that she walked away with the impression that it was a wacky cult that refused to speak for itself, and that DM came across as a complete nutjob. That made me feel better.

What really ticked me off, though was Terry Moran mouthing DM's words about how Scientology recruits (present tense) celebrities like (insert the same old list). Just how long has it been since they recruited their last celebrity anyway? Does the South American quasi-dictator colonel count?

Schockenawd 5 hours ago

My advice to Ray Jeffrey is to keep smiling. I know what I'm talking about on this. In 1991, as Cathy Shipe, I had a bright, shiny new law license, and it landed me in the office of Dan Leipold, who would eventually become my law partner in 1998. Together, we represented clients like the Cult Awareness Network, Lawrence Wollersheim, Raul Lopez and others. It was Dan and I, along with Ford Greene, who had filed the motion in the last Wollersheim case that eventually caused the Church to give up and pay the millions it owed Wollersheim. Dan was a cowboy of a lawyer, a very white-hat kind of guy who was passionate about achieving justice for those Scientology harmed. (Rest in peace, Dan.) I was the more common-sense one, who spent a fair share of my time trying to keep Dan calm so his blood pressure would stay in check. Over the years, we would occasionally have reason to wonder whether either or both of us had been the target of Scientology surveillance. Other than the one mole who spent a few days in our office while we were getting a visit from Jesse Prince and Bob Minton, I'm not aware that there was any real effort to spy on us. But, it doesn't really matter whether it's real or not; when you're up against Scientology, you always assume (with good reason) that it could be happening, and it always makes you a little more wary about how you attend to your day-to-day life. Dan and I learned the best thing we could do was keep a sense of humor about it. If Scientology really wanted to focus on our crummy little office in Santa Ana and our much-too-boring personal lives, there wasn't much we could do about it. So we smiled and made it through. And we even achieved some of the justice we were going for.

Keep your eyes on the prize, Mr. Jeffrey... and just keep smiling.

Tye Solaris 4 hours ago

"many sent to the camps had spent the previous 2-4 years or so in ghettos, with insufficient food and no medication and in appalling conditions."

"They were forbidden to own radios or buy newspapers, too, and they were subject to curfews."

I could go on posting these quotes all day.....

Just another day in the penal colonies of Scientology... but it is not.

The above quotes are from Jews of Poland before they were sent to extermination camps... which were originally intended as the new cities of the future.

Hdemollester 21 minutes ago

Hi everyone. I'm new to this forum, this is my first comment. I watched Nightline last night, and was so shocked I just spent the entire night reading up on Scientology, which is how I found this site. I'm in the entertainment industry, and know a few people who are into Scientology. I've been invited to come to the Celebrity Center a few times, for dinners or events. I hadn't gone yet due more to schedule issue than anything else, but I probably would have relented eventually.

Not now. No f-ing way.

I just spent hours pouring over this entire site. The primer, the horrible stories of abuse, the whole Debbie Cook story. I read as many comments threads as I could, which taught me almost more than the articles themselves.

I've read all the comments on this article, and while I understand your concerns about the half-assed job done by Nightline, let me assure you that from the perspective of this newbie, it did the job. It freaked me out enough to start looking into it, especially given the heavy concentration of Scientologists in my line of business, and the fact that I've clearly been a target of quiet but relentless recruitment.

The first thing I did was google Debbie cook. Guess what comes up first? That's how I found my way here. If your concern is that the story wouldn't scare off fresh meat, trust me, have no fear. I really knew nothing about it other than what I'd been told by the few Scientologists I knew. But that had now changed.

Not only me. I've been on the phone with friends and peers, and while a surprising number already knew enough about it to never set foot into one of their buildings, others were like me: kind of oblivious and possibly open to exploring.

Trust me when I tell you that none of my circle will ever again be at risk for being plucked by this dangerous cult. And I can tell you right now that there are certain people in my industry with whom I will never work again. And I'm fortunate enough to be able to make that choice.

What makes me angriest is that it was presented as a way to improve my life, increase my artistic abilities, and help others without all the typical religious dogma found in churches. In particular I have always disliked the blatant hatred towards gays you find in most churches, which as you can imagine, doesn't play well in my line of work. I was told this was different- welcoming, accepting of all, without the need to believe in the usual supernatural bullshit of Religions like Jesus and all that. Turns out that was all a lie- not only are they horribly homophobic, but they believe in freaking ALIENS!

Next time I get invited to the Celebrity Center, you can be sure that I will tell them to tell their buddy Xenu to shove it up his 75-million year old alien ass.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Although I can understand Tony being disgusted at Nightline, I have to say I really think they did a better job than they may be given credit for. We are all looking at this from the point of view of knowedge. We all have so much information about what Miscavige has done and what is going on in COS that this looks tame and flaky to us.

But you have to remember:

1) This show is meant for a public who really knows nothing about this stuff
2) If anyone is in any way interested in learning more, it's just a google away.

This letter in the "comments" section really kind of sums it up.

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


Kim O'Brien
moderator.png


I made my husband stay up last night to watch the interview . Poor bastard has heard me talking about this freak show for a year and trying to put up with me. Since I have been following all of this and knew a bit more behind the story ...i was bummed about the interview and the way it was done. My husband however ...freaked the fuck out . At 7am this morning ..instead of reading news before he went to work ...he read the Truth Rundown.


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


I have to say, I think a reporter from ABC News talking about The Hole on US prime time television is a big fucking deal, no matter how much else they did wrong or not right enough.

Good points.

The fact that they started by talking of the great expansion and ended with slapping and attempted finger breaking etc will no doubt incline people to google.

its an outpoint darling. :)
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
A Current Affair in Australia had an actual interview with Debbie first.

American media won't "count" that but I only read about the Aussie shows for the most part so I didn't know if she had been interviewed or just testimony shown.

I could bitch about American media doing this but most all media does, if it's the first interview done in that country they will call it an exclusive. The amount of Americans who may have made the effort to watch an Aussie interview with Debbie is infinitesimal compared to the number who saw it on Nightline.

I can't complain. The American media is what DM fears the most, it's Scientologys home base where - it's where Int, PAC, and Flag are located. Its a country of 300 million and its been the cults main piggy bank for a long time. DM grew up with American network TV so ABC means something major to him, hell Nightline was the ONLY TV news program he ever appeared on - so this hit him hard.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
The American media is what DM fears the most, it's Scientologys home base where - it's where Int, PAC, and Flag are located. Its a country of 300 million and its been the cults main piggy bank for a long time. DM grew up with American network TV so ABC means something major to him, hell Nightline was the ONLY TV news program he ever appeared on - so this hit him hard.

:iagree:
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
They referred to it as an "exclusive" because they actually interviewed Debbie. As far as I know she hasn't granted any one on one interviews with media outlets - besides answering a few questions after the injunction was dismissed. Plenty of media outlets have ran stories about her and showed video clips of her testimony, but she had not actually granted an interview until now. So technically it was an "exclusive interview" - not an exclusive story or a scoop. The fact she revealed nothing new in this exclusive interview didn't stop ABC from promoting the hell out of it.

Unfortunately, for us, all she did was repeat exactly what she said on the stand but that made sense. The cult is still after her for the breach of contract suit. Anything new she would say in public, that isn't already part of a public record via her testimony that was a result of their injunction request, could be used against her in that case.

I'm sure her lawyer carefully vetted questions and explained the limits of what she could reveal to the interviewer. He obviously thinks the media coverage gives her leverage in the case, but he's not gonna let the cult score any points by her going outside of information already on the public record.

Information is going to be tightly controlled surrounding Debbie for awhile, but that's what a good attorney is supposed to do for a client. (Even if it sucks for us and popcorn futures.)

So in other words Spencer's second letter pointing out the night time show was illegitimate because she only gave one interview and they spread the interview out into two shows. Now why am I faulting Spencer, It would have had to have been the Church that applied that double negative to the situation.

And they added the part about the posting of the letters on Tony O's blog.

Idiot Church that idiotates.

Rd00
 
The endless battles and personal trials experienced within the war against Scientology or to Keep Scientology Working, the internecine struggles, etc., make endlessly entertaining fodder. I hope that what results is a decision do revoke the charter of the corporations composing the Scientology, incorporated Church. Without that, it's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

don't be silly UM. from the viewpoint of any organized religion "the hole" is a sequestering. CoS is entirely within very good just proper and legal rights to have it's own internal bylaws

that don't mean i like it or support it
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
My point is that protesting specific atrocities does bring need attention, but until the bylaws and corporate charters are revoked or amended to reflect the changes protesters want, it amounts to nothing, systemically.
 

Petey C

Silver Meritorious Patron
I think the keyword was "Australian" -- it was an Australian exclusive.

A Current Affair in Australia had an actual interview with Debbie first.

Same channel. They do tend to recycle their own stories.
 
Top