Speculation?
A lot of people are equally
speculating that
she got nothing. That's speculation too.
That she simply folded up like a rusty lawn chair when an OSA group showed up in San Antonio from LA on or around the weekend of April 7-8th for a "friendly" confabulation.
Equal speculation on both sides of this debate. :confused2: There's lawyers lined up and guessing on both sides too.
We'll find out soon enough. There's lots of eye balls looking in the same direction nowadays and very few things can be kept secret anymore in the world. Somebody on the ground in Texas will see something going on or hear chatter and talk. We'll find out.
A dissolution of their business and a public bankruptcy filing will tell us one thing. A move to Monte Carlo, something else.
The penny will drop, as they say.
I have no doubt.
ILove2Lurk
Actually, there's a bit of a difference. My "speculation" that the parties returned to the status quo, i.e. no additional money, gag, case withdrawn, which I speculated was the case prior to Tobin and Childs reporting the court order, is supported by said court order. Conversely, speculation that Cook was paid in addition to the $100k already received is supported by a grassy knoll requiring endless compound inferences.
I'm not going to argue a game of telephone with 'someone's friend who is a lawyer' upthread, but the Cook-got-millions speculators have yet to advance a plausible theory (a) why Cook's leverage changed so drastically from the time the agreement was signed to the time of the settlement--if Cook's testimony was so potentially damaging, why was she ever sued at all? Scientology already knew what she knew; (b) why Scientology's attorneys would be so suddenly stupid as to give money away as part of a secret, contradictory, consideration-absent, impossible-to-enforce agreement; (c) why Scientology's leverage decreased so drastically from the time the NDA was signed to the present--remember that the court had not ruled on the NDA's validity, and it really could have gone either way. Cook was risking a lot if the agreement was found valid, and even though I liked her side better, it'd hardly have been a shock if a trial court found against her.
For Cook to have gained so much leverage as to demand the suit's withdrawal PLUS money beyond what she'd already been paid, she would not only have had to be 100% certain that the court would find in her favor (which there is no reason to think could have been possibly ascertained by either party), but she'd have also had to have additional leverage going the other way in the form of a counterclaim seeking high damages. Her counterclaim merely sought declaratory relief, which, if Scientology sought to withdraw, would have forced Cook to litigate the case against herself at her own expense. The best case legal scenario for Cook, should she have continued the case, would have been that the agreement was invalidated and she could keep the money and speak freely. Extra money was not on the table.
Those who assume that Cook's additional testimony was so potentially damaging that she could suddenly demand withdrawal plus millions also can't explain (a) why the testimony didn't come out immediately at the injunction hearing (what lawyer suggests you lead with your weak stuff?); and (b) why the settlement did not occur on the eve of trial, which is when Scientology, or any strategically minded litigant, ordinarily settles a case it doesn't want to proceed. The timing of the settlement suggests that it was Cook who came to the table first, making a scenario by which she walked away with millions even more preposterous.
The main contention of the Cook-got-millions crowd seems to be that Cook's potential testimony was so possibly damaging that Scientology found itself in such a bind that it was forced to pay Cook millions, despite that no one even knows what that testimony would be, adding a speculative degree of difficulty to the calculus. It also rests on the assumption that Scientology would pay money it didn't have to in order to avoid bad publicity, despite that Scientology has for decades inflicted instance after instance of bad publicity on itself in the face of known consequences. It's contradictory to allege that Scientology would move heaven and earth to avoid bad PR, and then when they inflict bad PR on itself, say that that footbullet was inevitable because Scientology always does that. Cook signaled that her testimony was the "tip of the iceberg," but I can't assume that's anything more than bluster with nothing more. Because of course she'd say that, it's smart to keep the press interested. But what everyone who's projecting their wishes and dreams on this case forgets, Scientology was entirely aware of the iceberg's contents before it sued Cook.
