Scientology Settles with Debbie Cook

Boomima

Patron with Honors
So 50 objections to 50 interrogatories would not be considered a PR fiasco?

Or is this an overestimation on my part?

Rd00
I sincerely doubt that the public at large would have paid much attention to a long, protracted legal battle. Scientology just isn't on the radar of most of the people I know, even in Florida. I don't even think that the TB Times would have devoted a ton of space to every single legal maneuver. It's budget time. Local and state governments are fighting and slashing programs. That's what people are concerned with.
 

tikk

Patron with Honors
So 50 objections to 50 interrogatories would not be considered a PR fiasco?

Or is this an overestimation on my part?

Rd00

It'd barely register a blip on any media's radar. If someone wanted to gin up some manufactured outrage at what I've already explained would be an unextraordinary event, at best there perhaps might have been a Village Voice post about how Scientology was being difficult with respect to discovery, but other than that, it'd just be a fully-expected step in yet another Scientology-related protracted litigation.
 

BunnySkull

Silver Meritorious Patron
I would think Cook agreeing to a settlement as a form of leverage. The cult doesn't want an ongoing legal battle where salacious gossip about crazy abuse and behavior is dripped and drabbed out to the national media. Fact is major national network TV took a big interest in this story. The cult was going to have to deal with major flaps over the course of this case in the national media.

A secret settlement would be possible because it allowed the cult to save face. To the media/public it was a settlement where Cook agreed to stfu for good. In private she got additional compensation for doing so. If a confidential settlement was hinted at in the agreement you'd have everyone saying Cook won and got big money to shut up. (Remember this the cult who's chant during the Wollershiem case was "not one thin dime." it's not about money for the cult, it's about saving face and to DM a publicly known payoff is an ego blow. Debbies leverage was agreeing to settle and for this nightmare to go away. She was paid to make this headache and danger for DM to go away, but the cult wanted badly to look like winners or at least not losers - hence a payoff off the record.

Debbies main power was naming David Miscavige directly in this mess - that was key. If it was all left to just the Org or other SO members it would still be ongoing however any threat to DM will be taken care of no matter what. He really freaks out over named in court matters.

The only things that give me any doubt about a pay-off are the timing of the settlement. Really this should have come on the eve of the next big court date or right before trial, the timing of it was very strange. It does imply on party approached the other for whatever reason. The other thing is Debbie is still brainwashed, and it seems very vulnerable. Her husband, who she probably is very emotionally dependent on at this point in her life, was not prepared for all this. He missed the SO! Pressure applied to his family by the cult could have had him pressuring Debbie to fold, or even threatening to leave her if it continued. Idk.

I think some indicators in the future will tell us. Whether Cook buys a new house, moves across the country, files bankruptcy, refunds donations, etc... should give us a answer.

From what I understand Debbie and Wayne were not doing too well financially. Her consulting biz wasn't flourishing even when she had Scio clients. So the idea she would walk away with nothing seems strange given she didn't have much to lose. Hell she could have just kept the case going for awhile to generate donations from indies and others. She cut off any potential income stream - both from church members and critics/indies by settling so I have a hard time believing she did it for no money. She really screwed herself if so and from what we know about Debbie's SO career she didn't get screwed, she screwed others.
 
So 50 objections to 50 interrogatories would not be considered a PR fiasco?
if I recall correctly, there was a post saying per Texas law they had to respond or be in contempt of court. I'm sure DM didn't want to go down that path, they were pretty damning questions. IMO responding to the questions, plus all of the other falderal that would come up in court was definitely something DM wanted to avoid.
A secret settlement would be possible because it allowed the cult to save face.
There was another post where a lawyer said that the usual was to do the money settlement before going to court and filing the injunction to tie it all up legally. He said it was common practice in these sort of situations.

Mimsey
 

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
Anybody who's disappointed at Debbie Cook's settling should look to the future. Debbie Cook is still a Hubbardite. That means she can't be expected to be rational about this. Remember, Hubbard's pod-people don't respect mere 'wog' laws.

Denied any form of outlet whereby she can talk about Miscavige and so on... the pressure is going to build. The urge to send another slew of e-mails, or contact the media. If you're a Hubbard apologist rather than a Miscavige apologist, speaking out has got to seem like the "right thing to do."

Also, once her business folds, why care? The first law of suing people is: don't sue somebody who doesn't have any money. For a particularly clear example of why this is a stupid thing to do, take a glance at McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris (1997, UK) - the famous "McLibel Case". After ten years of being rubbished from the witness box, McDonalds was finally awarded £40,000 in damages... and then the defendants got a bigger sum awarded to them from the often-bizarre European Court of Human Rights. You sue people who are penniless, you simply make the world take note of what they said about you.

Debbie Cook is still a cultie. She believes she can 'make this go right' with a dedicated stare and a ludicrous postulate. She's had all her toys taken away from her: the cult she wasted her adult life on, she can't even talk about now. Not even to kvetch with like-minded Independents. For a dedicated Hubbardist, that's got to really burn... and Miscavige has no power over her, anyway: her business is in the toilet, she's got no money to speak of (unless there was a payoff, but that would mean the settlement wasn't a win for Scientology) so she can't be sued. This wasn't a criminal law case, so I doubt she has to fear jail.

The upshot of all this: as a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to her folly. I think we will be hearing from Debbie Cook again. Maybe not right away, but sooner or later. Meanwhile, watch out for Debbie Cook posting anonymously. Also watch out for anonymous people posting as Debbie Cook. ("Will the real Clam Cultie please stand up?")
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
And realize that Scientology isn't special in this regard; only the blandest interrogatories (e.g., corporate office address, name and number of corporate officers) are answered without a hassle by any attorney.

Thanks very much for the detailed explanation, Scott.

As a point of interest, I imagine the question "name and number of corporate officers?" would actually be a very sensitive question in this case, considering that the real-life number is 1. Although proving it would be something else.

Paul
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks very much for the detailed explanation, Scott.

As a point of interest, I imagine the question "name and number of corporate officers?" would actually be a very sensitive question in this case, considering that the real-life number is 1. Although proving it would be something else.

Paul

Paul,

If I didn't know any better I would say that you are insinuating that in the case of Scientology, the "name and number of corporate officers" is not a "bland" subject.

Rd00
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
I'm still interested in this thread and situation.

Now, my 'friend,' who is an attorney, is one of two partners in one of the top law firms in the city in which I live; he is on retainer with the City and has saved them hundreds of thousands of dollars with his good legal advice.

He has argued a case before the United States Supreme Court - and won it for his client.

So when he tells me how it works that money is given to silence a claimant and make a lawsuit go away, without it being mentioned in the signed settlement, I tend to listen.

On Friday, January 27, 2012, the Church of Scientology sued Debbie Cook for violating her NDA by composing and sending to fellow church members on New Years Eve an email KR enumerating wrongs being done to the church membership. She did this as a last resort as her KR fell on deaf ears on Management lines. The Church was seeking a minimum $300,000 in damages.

At the time of the suit being filed, a Temporary Restraining Order was placed on Debbie. The Church later hoped to obtain a Temporary Injunction to remain in place until the Trial was concluded.

I've gone back and carefully re-read Debbies KR, the document that started it all off.

In it, she only did what every Scilon is exhorted and expected to do under the terms of KSW #1. There is no opinion or disparagement. She merely accurately, truthfully described a situation, then quoted the exact Hubbard policy or tech that applies to that activity and noted that the existing scene is a departure from LRH scripture.

And she was not attacking the Church, she was pointing out the out tech and off policy actions of a particular individual, trying to save the Church.

Debbie said nothing about the Human Rights violations she suffered at the hands of Miscavige while at Int Base or the sorry condition of the other top execs in 'The Hole' there. THAT"S the kind of stuff Miscavige did not want exposed.

Nothing in the NDA that Debbie had signed previously DISALLOWED HER WEARING HER HAT AS A SCILON, I.E., PRACTICING HER RELIGION - a Constitutionally protected right.

Even our own TIKK, Scott Pilutek, stated this, quoted from Village Voice article of 31 January 2012 by Tony Ortega:

"But Cook and Baumgarten also have possible affirmative defenses that could make this case truly fascinating. Cook's e-mail is, at heart, a sincere religious argument. She's genuinely concerned about the direction of Scientology and strongly suggests that the current management is not adhering to Hubbard's doctrine, quoting him liberally throughout.

A legitimate question therefore exists, I think, as to whether this isn't a contract dispute at all, but rather a religious dispute, which the Court could not resolve without violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment (i.e., courts are prohibited from deciding religious disputes lest they become impermissibly entangled in religious disputes), or without violating Cook and Baumgarten's First Amendment free exercise rights. If the Court is to find for Scientology over Cook/Baumgarten, it must not appear to be taking sides in a religious dispute, and that doesn't appear to be so easy a task."


On February 2, 2012, Debbie filed a motion to dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order.

On February 3, 2012, her motion was denied.

On February 9, 2012, Debbie testified in Open Court about the abuses at Int Base.

On February 10, 2012 after ONE day of testimony, the Church dropped its pursuit of a Temporary Restraining Order.

Gee, d'ya think it was a PR mega-fiasco for the Church and the Midget told Legal to drop the attempt NOW NOW NOW?

What I think some people don't get about rank and file scilons is that they 1) knew and respected Debbie Cook as the long term CO of Flag Land Base and she held celebrity status with them; 2) knew well the tech of KSW in day to day practice; and 3) ARE the money source that fuels the engine of Scientology.

David Miscavige must above all keep them on board paying or his lifestyles of the rich and famous, excellent bling-filled adventure is over.

THAT IS ALL HE CARES ABOUT. Get that.

This trial was a nightmarish threat from Hell for him. This was not Time Magazine, not a dead Lisa McPherson with no one to speak for her, not Larry Wollershiem who they knew nothing about but what the church hachet machine told them.

On February 27, 2012, Debbie filed a countersuit against the church:

"The Voice (The Village Voice by Tony Ortega) has learned that Debbie Cook filed a counterclaim against the Church of Scientology Monday afternoon, the first significant development since her stunning victory against the church in a Texas courtroom on February 10.

In her counterclaim, Cook is aiming directly at Scientology's ultimate leader, David Miscavige, by attempting to add two of the church's most powerful entities to the lawsuit that was filed against her by Scientology's Flag Service Organization, her former employer.

Besides Cook's filing, we also have several other documents sent back and forth between the opposing parties which provide a revealing look at how this case is being litigated behind the scenes."


Included in the filing was a set of Interrogatories and a list of 'Admit or Deny' Admissions.

Meanwhile, Debbie Cook was appearing on Good Morning America and Nightline.

D'ya think maybe the Midget watched the shows and maybe went a little nutzoid? Maybe, Hell!

On March 2, 2012, the church files for Summary Judgement, claiming its just a simple case of contract breach.

On March 9, 2012, The Hearing on the request for Summary Judgement by the church is pushed back to May 7, 2012.

(Again, from the VV and Tony O) "This morning, Bexar County District Judge Cathy Stryker told Scientology to cool its jets.

She pushed back a hearing on its motion for summary judgment from March 23 to May 7. In the meantime, the church will have to answer Cook's request for a deposition by naming a church official who can be made available for it. And, by next week, the church should have to begin answering some of Cook's other requests for information."


On April 24, 2012 it is announced that the Church has settled with Debbie Cook. No other details can be released about the agreement beyond the text of a Permanent Injunction signed by both parties. It is known from the document that Debbie paid no monies to the Church - no 'minumum' $300,000.

Now, as to the matter of was Debbie paid off, to end the matter with no more damage to the Church, which had undeniably already occurred, and to preserve the True Believers on board with his squirrel actions:

Do I think David Miscavige would pay to avoid having his time at the helm of the Church dragged through the full court press of the media? Hell yes. He is just another criminal cockroach who scurries away from the light to hide behind a bevy of lawyer dupes and billion dollar fund for which he did no work.

Do I think David Miscavige would pay to avoid having the rank and file scilons as spectators while the scenario described by Pilutek above is adjudicated? Hell yes. He knows they will see off policy and out tech for what they are and who was the author.

Do I think David Miscavige would pay to avoid his having to be deposed or testify or anyone close to him be deposed or testify? Hell yes.

Look how much he paid to litigate Time magazine and he didn't even win. But he did cost them millions of dollars, beyond their litigation insurance, to the point where they would carry no more such articles.

I think the Church was boxed into a no win position between proving their original suit and beating Cooks' counter-suit. I think it is far more likely that damaging information gained about the Church from the Church through Discovery and Deposition was potentially or actually more likely to influence the case to a settlement rather than damaging information about Debbie. She, and thus her lawyer, already knew any damaging facts about Debbie and that the church would use her o/w write-ups, pc folders, etc.

By accepting a payoff, Debbie avoided a Time magazine scenario, avoided being utterly ruined and got to make her point to the True Believers.

Which was all she wanted to do in the first place.
 

tikk

Patron with Honors

Again appealing to the authority of a lawyer friend to whom you couched the issue in terms to which I'm not privy is akin to telling your grade school friends, "well my father said..." The fact that you would even think it persuasive doesn't speak well of your ability to reason.

Analyzing the postmortem of this case is rather complicated, first off because everyone's speculating, meaning that the most productive discussion really centers not on what definitely happened, or even what could have happened, but what most likely happened, given the entire sprawling context. Is it possible/legal for litigants to structure a settlement whereby money goes unmentioned in the written agreement but is nevertheless exchanged? Sure, but the better question is whether it was likely to have occurred here, given the full set of circumstances. This question I've answered somewhat exhaustively, and gave my reasons for concluding as much.

In your post below you don't dispute those reasons but instead reiterate the same magical thinking I've already debunked, so I've no inclination to spin my wheels on a point by point basis. Basically though, your argument emanates from the same false presumption others here start with--that Cook wielded greater leverage than she actually possessed. The corollary to this is your mistaken presumption that the underlying legal realities were certain and ascertainable (which would allow Cook the leverage to play litigation chicken with Scientology as your post implies she did). You've not even tried to show that the legal realities were ascertainable and you've failed to show that Cook had the requisite leverage.

I've speculated that these presumptions emanate from the heady rush we all got from hearing Cook's very public testimony, despite her testimony bringing the court no closer to determining the validity of the NDA, but it's probably also due to some very wishful thinking on the part of people here that Miscavige is losing. Realize that I'm not suggesting that he's winning, only that people are gravely miscalculating how much additional bad PR Scientology can and will endure. Cook wasn't going to be the straw that broke Scientology's back, except in the most fevered minds. Oh, I'm sorry, she was on Nightline? Well so was Marty, and Marty had far more interaction with Miscavige than Cook. Why isn't he being paid millions to go away?

In asking your lawyer friend, did you explain that Cook was a defendant to the breach suit? Did you mention that her counterclaim sought no damages but rather a declaratory judgment as to the merits of the case brought against her? I don't sense that you understand why this is an important distinction because you write "I think the Church was boxed into a no win position between proving their original suit and beating Cooks' counter-suit", evidently ignorant that they were one and the same thing.

I've pointed out here and elsewhere why her counterclaim bought Cook no real leverage, but instead of refuting my analysis in your post, you reasserted the same magical thinking. And oh, was Cook was going to gain potentially damaging information in discovery? Scientology's lawyers surely could not have foreseen Cook filing the same procedural discovery papers that are filed in every courtroom in the country. Why oh why did they ever file suit in the first place? Your post frames ordinary motion practice, which Scientology is expert at delaying, prolonging, protracting at great cost to its opponent, as a spider web Scientology found itself caught in. Learn 2 Reality, as the kids might say.

Predictable events are predicable. And whatever might become known by Cook's testimony was already known to Scientology. Underlying your theory is the assumption that Scientology's lawyers are idiots. And they're really not. I'm hard-pressed to think of an example where any ex-member got the better of a negotiation with Scientology but I can easily recall an endless stream of examples where Scientology screwed people to the wall.

And did you happen to mention to your friend that per your fantasy Scientology--again, as plaintiff--would have been providing Cook however much money that it could never collect on in the event of a future breach? Why is that you ask? Again, the prohibitions against Cook are stated in the court ordered settlement, and the court order states that Cook received no additional money. Therefore, upon a hypothetical Cook breach, Scientology cannot go back to the court and argue that Cook must return the money. Because the court would reply, "What money? Any money you provided Cook beyond this agreement was a gift. The consideration (the bargained-for elements of the agreement) is all accounted for in our previous court order."

The upshot of your scenario effectively finds Scientology financing Cook's future legal defense against future breaches; and this is something I could never see them doing. If they gave Cook more money, they'd have given themselves a way to retrieve it (and you do that by putting it into the same agreement with the prohibitions against Cook).

I certainly stand by my argument that Cook's Dec 31 e-mail constituted protected religious speech, as you cite, but realize that (a) it was only an argument, Scientology wasn't without any of its own; (b) Cook's post-testimony comments likely would not have been considered protected religious speech; Cook knocked the legs out from her religious free exercise argument by apparently mistaking Scientology having withdrawn its injunction request for the court's having ruled on the agreement's validity. Yet another reality you either don't understand or choose to ignore.

I could go on and on and debunk the rest of your post but if you read through what I've already written here and elsewhere, I already have. You're not adding anything to the discussion other than bold faced emphasis and superlatives, so I'm going to stop writing about this myself.
 
Ok Tikk, let me ask this question: Assuming for a moment that Debbie was placed in the hole, was abused, was coerced into signing the NDA, and that her testimony on the subject was true. Isn't that illegal? I know she has not filed charges with the Riverside PD and this is a civil matter, but the exposure of it and having Mr. M or his SO staff testify that it happened, wouldn't that open a door to further legal wrangling? A further PR nightmare?

I understand the points of law as you state them, and the logical conclusion they lead to, which is an unpredictable or unlikely positive result re: the NDA for Debbie. And that the church lawyers know what damaging things she could possibly say.

However, it seems to me there is a side to this that you discount and that is the pr fallout if the case were to continue and more of the same were to be revealed. You cite Marty's blathering, but what has he said of substance? He has never (to the best of my knowledge) gone on record and stated definitely where the bodies are buried. He is at best a side show attraction, what with the token harassment the church mounts against him.

Perhaps, since many Scientologists don't read Scino news in the media, you feel even if Debbie produced a video of DM personally abusing her, they (rank and file staff and public) would never see or believe it, thus that argument has no validity.

It appears to me there are two camps - the "this is the way the law works, you idiots" camp and the "he is willing to pay to make the bad pr go away" camp. You appear to be in the former - but, is that to say there is no validity to the other?

Wouldn't it be in her advantage to make some bad pr noise in the media, and play that card for a quick settlement to dodge an uncertain outcome in the NDA dispute?

Mimsey
 

tikk

Patron with Honors
Ok Tikk, let me ask this question: Assuming for a moment that Debbie was placed in the hole, was abused, was coerced into signing the NDA, and that her testimony on the subject was true. Isn't that illegal? I know she has not filed charges with the Riverside PD and this is a civil matter, but the exposure of it and having Mr. M or his SO staff testify that it happened, wouldn't that open a door to further legal wrangling? A further PR nightmare?

I understand the points of law as you state them, and the logical conclusion they lead to, which is an unpredictable or unlikely positive result re: the NDA for Debbie. And that the church lawyers know what damaging things she could possibly say.

However, it seems to me there is a side to this that you discount and that is the pr fallout if the case were to continue and more of the same were to be revealed. You cite Marty's blathering, but what has he said of substance? He has never (to the best of my knowledge) gone on record and stated definitely where the bodies are buried. He is at best a side show attraction, what with the token harassment the church mounts against him.

Perhaps, since many Scientologists don't read Scino news in the media, you feel even if Debbie produced a video of DM personally abusing her, they (rank and file staff and public) would never see or believe it, thus that argument has no validity.

It appears to me there are two camps - the "this is the way the law works, you idiots" camp and the "he is willing to pay to make the bad pr go away" camp. You appear to be in the former - but, is that to say there is no validity to the other?

Wouldn't it be in her advantage to play that card for a quick settlement to dodge an uncertain outcome in the NDA dispute?

Mimsey

There is no validity to the other camp absent the presumption of facts which are either unknown or observably false or unlikely. I'm not saying Cook didn't have damaging evidence, only that you'd be a fool to think that Scientology didn't already account for that whatever damage Cook could inflict on it when it sued her.

I'm saying that in order to reason that Cook got millions, you have to resolve a host of contradictions and realities and the best anyone has instead done is to say, "but what Cook was going to say was *really* bad." And then I counter with a hundred reasons why there is no secret agreement, I hear the response, "but no, it was *really really* bad." That's all you've done as well.

Besides the realities I've pointed to, you have to also resolve that Scientology has withstood enormous heaps of self-inflicted bad publicity when it was in their best interest to not so-inflict. (And then when they do, everyone says, "another footbullet from Scientology, so predictable!")

Or that Cook hadn't already provided the most damning material. You think her lawyer would tell Cook to lead with B material at the injunction hearing and save the stuff that would sink the Church of a rainy day? Why? Because she later said it was only the tip of the iceberg? There's a legal term of art for meaningless boasts such as that: "puffery."

I'm sure Cook had a ton more interesting things to say, but it doesn't follow that whatever else she had to say in a Texas court was going to trigger a law enforcement investigation that would result in the Church's downfall, given, among other reasons, that she'd already testified to actual crimes committed against her.

Scientology wanted Cook quiet but not because of embarrassing bad PR, though I'm sure that wasn't enjoyable for them and certainly a secondary goal. They don't want Cook talking to current members because she was a highly trusted official at FLAG. Cook was personally responsible for a metric ass-ton of lost dollars beginning on January 1 of this year. But it hardly follows that to make this happen, in addition to withdrawing from the litigation it brought on her, they needed to pay her a dime more than they'd already paid her, given the collective realities I've exhaustively illustrated.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Thanks Tikk for spending time with us and posting your viewpoints regarding the Debbie Cook settlement. Your legal education and experience has made your posts very worthwhile reading. I also thank LA SCN, Mimsey, and others for challenging Tikk's viewpoint. The challenges led to a very interesting and educational exchange of posts.

I do agree with you Tikk in that Debbie Cook did not get a monetary settlement. As you said it would have actually been a no-strings attached gift because there would've been no recourse for the CoS to come back and demand the money back if Debbie violated the new agreement. I can't see DM agreeing to give her a monetary gift with no strings attached. He'd rather eat nails than do such a thing, IMHO.

I was wondering one thing about Debbie's actions after the Feb. 9th hearing. Do you think it was a good idea for her to go on Nightline and talk to other journalists? She also posted something on Marty's blog. I can see why her lawyer told her to go ahead and testify about "the Hole" and other experiences in the TRO hearing because they needed the TRO to be either rescinded or dismissed. But as you said, the NDA wasn't ruled on by the Court that day, so it was still technically binding, at least potentially so until ruled otherwise. So did she perhaps lose some leverage by continuing to be vocal after the TRO hearing but before the actual hearing to determine the NDA's legality?
 

tikk

Patron with Honors
I was wondering one thing about Debbie's actions after the Feb. 9th hearing. Do you think it was a good idea for her to go on Nightline and talk to other journalists? She also posted something on Marty's blog. I can see why her lawyer told her to go ahead and testify about "the Hole" and other experiences in the TRO hearing because they needed the TRO to be either rescinded or dismissed. But as you said, the NDA wasn't ruled on by the Court that day, so it was still technically binding, at least potentially so until ruled otherwise. So did she perhaps lose some leverage by continuing to be vocal after the TRO hearing but before the actual hearing to determine the NDA's legality?

Thanks, and yes, I do think she hurt herself with those. I'll quote myself addressing the same thing on WWP a week or so ago:

tikk said:
On this same topic, her media spots also had the adverse affect of knocking the floor out from a few of her legal defenses, those which involved arguing that the contents of the e-mail did not constitute a breach. Even if that were found to be true--and I argued here and elsewhere that there were good reasons the e-mail didn't breach--the media spots almost certainly did constitute a breach of the NDA. Scientology may have withdrawn their injunction request (which was largely duplicative of the NDA), but the court never ruled on the validity of the NDA. By doing those media spots, not only did she jack up her calculable damages, she shrunk the number of her available defenses, and accordingly shrunk her negotiating leverage.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Much as I hate to say it, and much as everyone hates to hear it, from what I can see the real loser in all of this is Debbie.

Before her Jan 1 email:

1) She had a business with Scientology clients
2) Her and her husband were "in good standing" Scientologists
3) She was allowed to communicate with other COS Scientologists
4) Her and her husband were able to communicate with their families in Scientology.

Now:

1) She lost her Scientology clients, and there's really no sign that they will be replaced by anyone else.
2) Her and her husband are declared.
3) She is no longer allowed to communicate with other COS Scientologists.
4) Her and Wayne are cut off from their in-Scientology families. It sounds like this is especially a huge issue for Wayne.
5) They are forbidden to communicate with Indies and exes or they will be sued by COS.

Debbie may have escaped from this whole thing without having to pay any money, but she appears to be pretty much screwed. As is her husband Wayne.

Don't forget what Smurf said. After this whole thing blew up, Wayne's son in the SO in PAC vanished. There's no telling if Wayne knows where he is, and Wayne's son isn't allowed to communicate with Wayne anyway because Wayne is expelled. Sounds very much like what happened with Andre Tabayoyon's son after Andre 's affidavit in the 80s. To my knowledge, Andre never saw or heard from his son again.

I do think that the media exposure about the Hole and Debbie's email left a footprint and did some damage to COS. As tikk said, the biggest damage was to FSO's GI, and that was probably the major reason the church went after her.

However, this came at a very high price for the Baumgarten's. They pretty much appear to have lost everything they had.
 
Lulu Belle,
What you say is very true, and it makes me wonder - was she that naive to think there would be no repercussions from her NYE e-mail? Perhaps, as a true believer, she hasn't been reading the boards and was unaware of the likelihood it would be rebroadcast through out cyberspace and into the hands of the media. But I find it hard to believe she seriously was unaware of the potential for collateral damage.

As to her being a loser, perhaps she can take some comfort in the fact she "did the right thing" and stood up for her beliefs.

To me there is a sort of high stakes game being waged here, and any juicy email, post, or coming out is greatly publicized, and turned into an attack on DM's empire (not to be a conspiracy theorist) and her e-mail, was more grist for the mill then it would have been otherwise.

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Lulu Belle,
What you say is very true, and it makes me wonder - was she that naive to think there would be no repercussions from her NYE e-mail? Perhaps, as a true believer, she hasn't been reading the boards and was unaware of the likelihood it would be rebroadcast through out cyberspace and into the hands of the media. But I find it hard to believe she seriously was unaware of the potential for collateral damage.

I've thought about this quite a bit. I don't really have an answer.

I will say I have noticed that a lot of Scientologists seem oblivious to the "others-to-others" (and, if they were in a position of authority, the "self-to-others") damage that Scientology's policies have - until it happens to them. Then they seem amazed and outraged, like this was the first time they actually realized what that particular action actually means.

A Scientologist will see and know of a thousand cases of disconnection and think nothing of it. Then they wander from the fold, their kid still-in disconnects from them, and they suddenly are screaming about what a horrible thing disconnection is. Like this is the first time they've ever encountered it.

Seems like Cooke was kind of in that mindset. She was "good" and "upstat" and "following LRH Policy" so of course she wouldn't be treated like those low life downstats who natter. Then she gets slammed and she seems incredulous.

Never mind that she probably saw thousands of public and staff in Scientology get crucifed for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. Of course that would never happen to her.

I'm not sure why this is. I've just observed it a lot. I especially have noticed it with a lot of ex Sea Org execs. Marty is one of them, but he definitely is not the only one. Not by a long shot.
 
Perhaps it is like you say Lulu Belle, you think as you sit in a course room with your demo kit to hand, this is a good thing - the disconnected person will come to their senses, recant and all will be well with the world as Scientology makes strides salvaging this sector... And then it happens to you - and suddenly you see the reality - you are at the sharp end of a Machiavellian sword and it is not about recanting and rejoining the flock - it is about being smashed into the dirt by people you thought were your friends and were better than that. It is then that you see the us and them mentality of the "Church" and that it really is a cult.

Well, maybe now she will wake up.

Mimsey
 
Top