What's new

Why does OSA try to opt for cash settlements with SPs?

Jimmy Cricket

Patron with Honors
Food for thought.

Why does OSA / CoS initially try to opt for cash settlements with critics for exposing the criminal activities of Scientology?????

Obviously, the most ETHICAL group on the planet (or this sector of the universe) has nothing to hide.

Scientology is the _only_ true religion in the universe, and any critic that says otherwise is entitled to a cash payment. I am still waiting for my cash payment........
 

Div6

Crusader
Food for thought.

Why does OSA / CoS initially try to opt for cash settlements with critics for exposing the criminal activities of Scientology?????

Obviously, the most ETHICAL group on the planet (or this sector of the universe) has nothing to hide.

Scientology is the _only_ true religion in the universe, and any critic that says otherwise is entitled to a cash payment. I am still waiting for my cash payment........


Because they can then dictate the terms of the settlement, including gag orders and releases from liability without having their practices entered in to court records. Its really litigation 101, but with the cult it tends to go on steroids.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Is that so!? -. Hmm.. I'd like a miiiillion!

:D

Actually, the reason is fairly simple. The 'Church' has tons of cash. Yes, it hates having any of it go anywhere but 'uplines', but civil suits are *always* primarilly 'cash based' and, by the time someone is locked in a civil suit with the Cult, they're obviously beyond the point where extortion and threats of Disconnection and thuggery and mopery are considered reliable 'tools', although, the 'Church' will still continue to rely on them.

More important than cash considerations are always *gag* considerations, and, if a settlement can be *bought*, and include a *gag*, then the courts themselves can be used to enforce the Gag that no amount of 'Church' extortion seems capable of ensuring.

Zinj
 
Last edited:

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
When a former member can get a chunk of cash from the cult & the person willingly accepts it ? So be it.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Their bluff has been called. We all know that they do not want to go to trial and they do not want testimony and evidence entered into the public record, and they do not want church executives giving testimony or depositions and we all know it is worth a lot of money to them to not let things get this far.

They know that we know, and we know that they know that we know.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Their bluff has been called. We all know that they do not want to go to trial and they do not want testimony and evidence entered into the public record, and they do not want church executives giving testimony or depositions and we all know it is worth a lot of money to them to not let things get this far.

They know that we know, and we know that they know that we know.

Indeed, and yet it still works otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. If I've read the situation correctly, all it will take for the whole plan to go belly up will be for them to try that with someone who doesn't need or want the money and tells them to go take a hike when it is offered.

Then, you will get the trial, the testimony and evidence entered into the public record, church executives giving testimony and depositions etc. As you said recently, it's a paper tiger.
.
 
Last edited:

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Indeed, and yet it still works otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. If I've read the situation correctly, all it will take for the whole plan to go belly up will be for them to try that with someone who doesn't need or want the money and tells them to go take a hike when it is offered.

Then, you will get the trial, the testimony and evidence entered into the public record, church executives giving testimony and depositions etc. As you said recently, it's a paper tiger.
.

It all looks like a gamble to me. The bet is on how much money it will take to buy off someone in relation to the damage value they have to sell. The greater percentage of people probably have little to no resources to fight a legal battle, the general economy notwithstanding. The longer staff and public have been involved the more damaging information and documentation they may have but their resources may be also be depleted to the same extent. It can take many years for an ex-Sea Org member to become affluent enough to turn down an offer in preference for justice - or they cross someone who just doesn't care.

The longer they play at this, the greater the odds an anti-Scientology whale or a 3rd party with major resources or organization could back a legal action out of a concern for community welfare. Anonymous has already demonstrated the potential exists.

It only takes one.
 

Jump

Operating teatime
Indeed, and yet it still works otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. If I've read the situation correctly, all it will take for the whole plan to go belly up will be for them to try that with someone who doesn't need or want the money and tells them to go take a hike when it is offered.

Then, you will get the trial, the testimony and evidence entered into the public record, church executives giving testimony and depositions etc. As you said recently, it's a paper tiger.
.

Unfortunately resolve and integrity are not enough.

It also takes very deep pockets to retain the legal team necessary to hold off the OSA team long enough for it to reach the point of public depositions. They know it, we know they know it, they know that we know they know it and lawyers and judges know it. But that's how it has worked so far.

We saw what kind of $$ the cult threw at the Rathbun case even to the point of retaining Lamont Jefferson the brother of Supreme Court of Texas’ Chief Justice, just to 'observe' .
 

prosecco

Patron Meritorious
It all looks like a gamble to me. The bet is on how much money it will take to buy off someone in relation to the damage value they have to sell. The greater percentage of people probably have little to no resources to fight a legal battle, the general economy notwithstanding. The longer staff and public have been involved the more damaging information and documentation they may have but their resources may be also be depleted to the same extent. It can take many years for an ex-Sea Org member to become affluent enough to turn down an offer in preference for justice - or they cross someone who just doesn't care.

The longer they play at this, the greater the odds an anti-Scientology whale or a 3rd party with major resources or organization could back a legal action out of a concern for community welfare. Anonymous has already demonstrated the potential exists.

It only takes one.

There are a few issues here: one being a person who is simply creating a lot of noise and being damaging who may be offered a monetary sum to go away. The other being someone who refuses a financial settlement in preference to litigation. This is a bit more complicated as inevitably anyone who is in the process of litigation with the C of S will have to accept a financial settlement if they are successful in their claim. In other words, the legal process only recognises justice in monetary amounts.

Although when I rule the world, I would make restitution fit the crime. For instance the moron who didn't pick up after his dog yesterday and subsequently the kids all stepped in it, in my ideal world, I would find the owner and make him/her work in the local hospital changing bed pans for a week.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
There are a few issues here: one being a person who is simply creating a lot of noise and being damaging who may be offered a monetary sum to go away. The other being someone who refuses a financial settlement in preference to litigation. This is a bit more complicated as inevitably anyone who is in the process of litigation with the C of S will have to accept a financial settlement if they are successful in their claim. In other words, the legal process only recognises justice in monetary amounts.

Although when I rule the world, I would make restitution fit the crime. For instance the moron who didn't pick up after his dog yesterday and subsequently the kids all stepped in it, in my ideal world, I would find the owner and make him/her work in the local hospital changing bed pans for a week.

If someone is found culpable for a death or false imprisonment, don't we think that could get into prison sentences?
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Someone would have to raise a complaint to the police, then all the dirty tricks would be launched.

References:
Jan Eastgate
Rex Fowler
Steve Brackett
Lisa McPherson
http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/


http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/

Thank you for posting this link. I have read it before but in reviewing it seems to me that the suicide incidents picked up significantly around the early 90s. I suppose if this is true part of it could be due to a larger Scientology population or easier access and distribution of information but I'm guessing this was also coincident with an evolution towards heavy crush regging and more persistent hounding of people for money under the new leadership.

I think the church is making assumptions that they can continue to avoid the legal and PR consequences of their direct and/or indirect actions but some anti-Scientologists seem to be making the same assumptions. I see the law of unpredictable consequences rolling over the horizon like a juggernaut. There are two variables that make these kinds of tragedies more likely. The membership is contracting into a more hard core zealotry that is harder to control and predict. And as it becomes more difficult to attract new membership through the usual gradual indoctrination process they will bring in people with other non-doctrine based motivations such as escaping low living standards or dangerous circumstances in other countries or drug rehab who will also be more difficult to control and predict.

As the whole thing goes sideways, given the history, upper management will tighten the thumbscrews further.

For all you guys still in OSA who are reading this, you should be putting together your Gag Order Settlement insurance packages now.
 

prosecco

Patron Meritorious
If someone is found culpable for a death or false imprisonment, don't we think that could get into prison sentences?

Of course, but the OP was why OSA (C of S) opt for cash settlements, which to me would infer a civil action.

Any criminal prosecution would be the decision of the State prosecutor whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal proceedings.

My point, which was slightly sarcastic, is that the only method of settlement in the civil justice system is financial recompense, i.e. a monetary value is deemed sufficient. It isn't a creative process, but rather a list of injuries, emotional and/or physical, are given a figure. So, you have a system, for example, where a person loses a leg, and that has an assigned value. Aggravated damages may be if they were reliant on that leg as part of their career, or they enjoyed going hiking and that enjoyment was taken away.

Ideally, it would take an altogether different type of justice system where the person who was injured would be able to decide the punishment, at least be in a position where it would be taken into account. Although there is much debate about the evils of Sharia law, I do have respect for some aspects. I honestly can't remember where I read it or would do a link, but a man murdered a boy of about 17 years old. The family were asked by the court what their feelings were about whether the man should be subject of the death penalty, and they wanted the man to live, and he did.

From a civil law stance, it would be great to see appropriate remedial sanctions. For instance, I know a guy who parks anywhere he wants, because he has so much money, he doesn't really care about the fine. Maybe it's considered to be victimless, and probably in most instances it is, but I would love for him to ride around in a wheel chair for a day, and try to manoeuvre around inconsiderate cars, at least to get some perspective.

But like I said, the system isn't really that creative, and it's just on my wish list.:yes:
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Of course, but the OP was why OSA (C of S) opt for cash settlements, which to me would infer a civil action.

Any criminal prosecution would be the decision of the State prosecutor whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal proceedings.

My point, which was slightly sarcastic, is that the only method of settlement in the civil justice system is financial recompense, i.e. a monetary value is deemed sufficient. It isn't a creative process, but rather a list of injuries, emotional and/or physical, are given a figure. So, you have a system, for example, where a person loses a leg, and that has an assigned value. Aggravated damages may be if they were reliant on that leg as part of their career, or they enjoyed going hiking and that enjoyment was taken away.

Ideally, it would take an altogether different type of justice system where the person who was injured would be able to decide the punishment, at least be in a position where it would be taken into account. Although there is much debate about the evils of Sharia law, I do have respect for some aspects. I honestly can't remember where I read it or would do a link, but a man murdered a boy of about 17 years old. The family were asked by the court what their feelings were about whether the man should be subject of the death penalty, and they wanted the man to live, and he did.

From a civil law stance, it would be great to see appropriate remedial sanctions. For instance, I know a guy who parks anywhere he wants, because he has so much money, he doesn't really care about the fine. Maybe it's considered to be victimless, and probably in most instances it is, but I would love for him to ride around in a wheel chair for a day, and try to manoeuvre around inconsiderate cars, at least to get some perspective.

But like I said, the system isn't really that creative, and it's just on my wish list.:yes:

The motivation to achieve a settlement isn't limited to the immediate awards of a case. There can be further, discovery or identification of witnesses, etc. that lead to the support or opening of other cases of any kind. The only way the church can completely benefit from any case going to trial or having an open conclusion is if they are completely guilt free and even then just the day-to-day life of a Sea Org member can be strange enough to not want in the public record. Otherwise it is better not to risk the bad PR, the establishment of precedent, encouraging other people to file or testify, etc. They have so much money that even if the consequences of the trial are not severe the ancillary impacts could be worth avoiding at great expense.

Its all such a can of worms. Can you imagine any lawyer advising them to go to trial? And if they start in with all their black ops stuff that can also be so unpredictable that it can backfire hugely and their lawyers must know that that is where they instinctively want to go.

Pweeeze, take the settlement!!
 
Top