idrizomare
Patron with Honors
Random observations on the Debbie Cook litigation
Caveat: I have no inside information. This is pure speculation and observation.
If the newspaper is correct and (almost) no money changed hands, then not a bad outcome for CofS. They now (presumably) have an agreement that Debbie says nothing about CofS and does not associate with anyone who says bad things about CofS. This agreement I'm sure they can say was not signed under duress.
Yeah, they had Debbie's testimony about the Hole, but none of that was new news.
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but it's been a while since Scientology sued someone for saying bad things about them. Rather than the church turning tail to run due to this case, maybe they're returning to an old strategy. And not a bad one, really. By suing, Scientology creates a new problem in an enemy's life that becomes a bargaining chip. Since Scientology filed the lawsuit, Scientology can walk away from the litigation whenever its wants. Maybe with a nice agreement in their pocket.
Wasn't this incident over in a hurry? We went from Debbie's letter to the settlement in less than 4 months.
The case must be a huge blow to Marty, despite his spin. He'd been telling his flock for months that the threat of litigation was gone, but now it looks like it's back and with the familiar old pattern. The defendant's alternatives are to sign a confidentiality agreement or face years of litigation.
Marty repeats his usual threat: certain bad things better not happen or the gloves come off. I always assumed he was blowing smoke, but maybe there's something there. If they were willing to sue Debbie Cook, why not Marty? Are Marty and Scientology in some sort of uneasy stand-off? Assuming Marty knows anything sufficiently damaging (yeah, it's a stretch), he can't use it lightly if it's the only thing keeping him out of civil court. It has to be saved for doomsday.
In return for bowing out of the case, Marty says that he demanded that nothing damage the "win" of Feb 9 and 10. Such a nice guy to make demands about a settlement to which he's not a party.
Oh well. Isn't this always the way litigation with CofS goes?
Caveat: I have no inside information. This is pure speculation and observation.
If the newspaper is correct and (almost) no money changed hands, then not a bad outcome for CofS. They now (presumably) have an agreement that Debbie says nothing about CofS and does not associate with anyone who says bad things about CofS. This agreement I'm sure they can say was not signed under duress.
Yeah, they had Debbie's testimony about the Hole, but none of that was new news.
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but it's been a while since Scientology sued someone for saying bad things about them. Rather than the church turning tail to run due to this case, maybe they're returning to an old strategy. And not a bad one, really. By suing, Scientology creates a new problem in an enemy's life that becomes a bargaining chip. Since Scientology filed the lawsuit, Scientology can walk away from the litigation whenever its wants. Maybe with a nice agreement in their pocket.
Wasn't this incident over in a hurry? We went from Debbie's letter to the settlement in less than 4 months.
The case must be a huge blow to Marty, despite his spin. He'd been telling his flock for months that the threat of litigation was gone, but now it looks like it's back and with the familiar old pattern. The defendant's alternatives are to sign a confidentiality agreement or face years of litigation.
Marty repeats his usual threat: certain bad things better not happen or the gloves come off. I always assumed he was blowing smoke, but maybe there's something there. If they were willing to sue Debbie Cook, why not Marty? Are Marty and Scientology in some sort of uneasy stand-off? Assuming Marty knows anything sufficiently damaging (yeah, it's a stretch), he can't use it lightly if it's the only thing keeping him out of civil court. It has to be saved for doomsday.
In return for bowing out of the case, Marty says that he demanded that nothing damage the "win" of Feb 9 and 10. Such a nice guy to make demands about a settlement to which he's not a party.
Oh well. Isn't this always the way litigation with CofS goes?