DEBBIE COOK UN-GAGGED!!!

Smurf · **Joined:** Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am **Posts:** 2681

Dorothy wrote:

Smurf I was referring to Debbie seeking her own summary judgement. If Debbie seeks her own summary judgement and the judge rules in her favor, then she is free of the NDA at that point, right?

No. It's confusing if you don't know legal-ese. The "moving party" (plaintiffs: cult) would file for summary judgement. Debbie didn't file the case; she is the defendant. She can't file for Summary Judgement. Her attorney could, of course, file a motion to have the case dismissed, but because it is a contractual issue, the motion would most likely be denied.

If Debbie were to ever file a countersuit against the cult, she could file for Summary Judgement, because as the counter-suer, she is the "moving party" or plaintiff.

Dorothy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:56 am

Thanks Smurf. Are you suggesting that the only way Debbie can be legally released from the NDA is if she counter-sues? I'm trying to figure out- under what circumstances does she get legally released from the NDA?

Wieber · **Joined:** Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm **Posts:** 8397

It strikes me that those inside $cientology have a very false impression of public opinion toward the so called church. It probably goes back to Hubbard telling them the "simple" story of $cientology and that the public at large loves the organization.

They're statement about Debbie Cook lying under oath points to that. If you look at the various things that come from $cientology with regard to former members and critics you will see a pattern that would indicate such an attitude. Look at Tommy Davis' statements to the press, the religious freedom watch website, and Freedom magazine articles.

There is a tactic bullies use, mainly in the workplace, that has been named 'mobbing.' "Mobbing in the context of human beings means bullying of an individual by a group in any context." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbing

The way a bully instigates that is to manipulate other people to either gang together to attack the bully's victim, or at least to appear to do that. It seems to me that $cientology in issuing the statement about Debbie lying under oath has done so in an attempt to have the public at large follow $cientology's line of attack.

That may work within the $cientology organization where the people involved with it, and especially staff members, believe that their survival and eternity depend on being obedient and compliant to $cientology's leadership. It doesn't work on the general public at large for a number of reasons. The public at large are not indoctrinated (brainwashed in my opinion) in $cientology. They are not in fear and/or awe of David Miscavige. The opinion held by the public at large with regard to $cientology runs from not knowing/not caring, through '$cientology is weird/$cientology is dangerous/$cientology is evil.'

As to Debbie, I think she is getting a crash course education that no one ever expected she would get. I hope she comes away from it all with her mind free.

Smurf · **Joined:** Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am **Posts:** 2681

Dorothy wrote:

Thanks Smurf. Are you suggesting that the only way Debbie can be legally released from the NDA is if she counter-sues? I'm trying to figure out- under what circumstances does she get legally released from the NDA?

The only way the NDA is going to be found unenforceable is if Debbie wins the lawsuit against her. Plain & simple.

I'mglib · **Joined:** Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm **Posts:** 4970

I believe the sequence of events goes like this:

1. Temporary injunction to stop Debbie Cook from speaking before the trial. (CoS dropped this attempt.)

2. Summary judgement (where CoS tries to win the lawsuit without a trial).

3. Trial where CoS sues Debbie Cook for breaking the NDA.

We are at #2 now.

Wieber · **Joined:** Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm **Posts:** 8397

The statement $cientology issued in response to Debbie's testimony under oath could be construed as contempt of court. If, as $cientology alleges in it's statement, Debbie was lying under oath, then it is a matter for the lawyers representing $cientology to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt within that court session. Taking it outside the court demeans the legal system and shows disrespect for the court and the presiding judge. I would argue that if I were a lawyer.

Is this Debbie's first taste of wog law and wog justice? It certainly isn't anything like a committee of evidence (comm ev), that's for sure.

Smurf · **Joined:** Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am **Posts:** 2681

Wieber wrote:

The statement $cientology issued in response to Debbie's testimony under oath could be construed as contempt of court. If, as $cientology alleges in it's statement, Debbie was lying under oath, then it is a matter for the lawyers representing $cientology to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt within that court session. Taking it outside the court demeans the legal system and shows disrespect for the court and the presiding judge.

The cult's statement was also a slap to Judge Tanner's credibility in that they are claiming the judge inappropriately provided Debbie a podium to air her grievances, which is not what the Scilon lawyers wanted. Thier bawwww statements are typical to ones made in the past when they came out of a court case as the loser.

As Glib pointed out, there were two court cases filed against Debbie. She won the first one. The next one is the civil lawsuit against her. What she testified to in the TRO hearings will have to be repeated in the civil case so in can be put into the court record.

jensting · **Joined:** Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:22 pm **Posts:** 32

Let's not forget that the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology repeatedly called Debbie a liar. This ought to be plenty for a counter-suit.

Details in the book by Bonnie Woods (who, I repeat myself, won her lawsuits, collected the money and did not have to sign a gag-order - her lawyers got to dictate a gag order for OSA).
I don't think this is a trap to lure Debbie into counter-suing. I think they genuinely do not know any better.

subgenius · **Joined:** Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:44 pm **Posts:** 82

Either party can move for summary judgment.

Dorothy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 11, 2012 6:15 pm

Dorothy wrote:

Smurf I was referring to Debbie seeking her own summary judgement. If Debbie seeks her own summary judgement and the judge rules in her favor, then she is free of the NDA at that point, right?

Smurf wrote:

No. It's confusing if you don't know legal-ese. The "moving party" (plaintiffs: cult) would file for summary judgement. Debbie didn't file the case; she is the defendant. She can't file for Summary Judgement. Her attorney could, of course, file a motion to have the case dismissed, but because it is a contractual issue, the motion would most likely be denied.

subgenius wrote:

Either party can move for summary judgment.

Subgenius is correct:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Summary+Judgment wrote:

A procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a Matter of Law.

Any party may move for summary judgment; it is not uncommon for both parties to seek it. A judge may also determine on her own initiative that summary judgment is appropriate. Unlike with pretrial motions to dismiss, information such as affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, and admissions may be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Any evidence that would be admissible at trial under the rules of evidence may support a motion for summary judgment. Usually a court will hold oral arguments on a summary judgment motion, although it may decide the motion on the parties' briefs and supporting documentation alone.

whitesand · **Joined:** Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:17 pm **Posts:** 255

I have a question about the defense fund monies that Debbie has collected. If she were to win this case, my understanding of civil law is that the judge can award Debbie as the defendent her court costs, payable by the plaintiff, CoS, and that this is usually what happens to a wrongfully sued civil defendent. I wonder if donors would ask for their money back.

jensting · **Joined:** Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:22 pm **Posts:** 32

whitesand wrote:

I have a question about the defense fund monies that Debbie has collected. If she were to win this case, my understanding of civil law is that the judge can award Debbie as the defendent her court costs, payable by the plaintiff, CoS, and that this is usually what happens to a wrongfully sued civil defendent. I wonder if donors would ask for their money back.

As a donor, all I can say is that I look forward to having this problem. I mean, it's not like the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology which encourages its victims to deposit money "on account" and then withholds this money if the victim leaves the "church" as is happening to Bert Schippers and Lynne Hoverson in Florida. If Debbie Cook prevails over David Miscavige's money+law machine, I would consider my donation well spent

Wieber · **Joined:** Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm **Posts:** 8397

jensting wrote:

Let's not forget that the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology repeatedly called Debbie a liar. This ought to be plenty for a counter-suit.

Worse than calling her a liar was saying that she lied while under oath, which in effect accuses her of committing a crime. The really bright thing to do under the circumstances is publish an immediate retraction with an apology. Do you thing the so called church of $cientology will even think of doing that?

Debbie should sue them for that. The evidence for it exists in court records and a published written statement. The only thing Debbie and her lawyers need to do is assess the depth of $cientology's pockets.

jensting · **Joined:** Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:22 pm **Posts:** 32

Wieber wrote:

jensting wrote:

Let's not forget that the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology repeatedly called Debbie a liar. This ought to be plenty for a counter-suit.

Worse than calling her a liar was saying that she lied while under oath, which in effect accuses her of committing a crime. The really bright thing to do under the circumstances is publish an immediate retraction with an apology. Do you thing the so called church of $cientology will even think of doing that?

Debbie should sue them for that. The evidence for it exists in court records and a published written statement. The only thing Debbie and her lawyers need to do is assess the depth of $cientology's pockets.

Debbie could turn herself in to the court, which could then asses the damage done by the false testimony by establishing the truth once and for all by getting David Miscavige on the witness stand. Simple - yet insane

Or, putting it another way, if the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology does not report this as a crime to the police, they are tacitly agreeing with it and should struggle to get a complaint of "disparaging remarks" to stick...

I like what the clam spokespeople did there - but will David Miscavige?

Dorothy · **Posted:** Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:21 pm

I collected what I felt were some interesting and relevant commentary on Debbie's case:

Schockenawd on V V blog comments wrote:

In order for them to get a summary judgment, they will have to submit evidence to convince the court the nondisclosure agreement was valid and binding, and that what Cook did violated it. For observers, a motion for summary judgment would mean the same kinds of things we were hearing yesterday and today -- and more!

And for that reason, I highly doubt we'll see a motion for summary judgment. But, what would we expect to hear Scientology's lawyer say at the end of a hearing which he essentially ended by saying, Emily Litella style, "Nevermind" - ? He had to say something that wouldn't evoke the picture of a dog running away with its tail between its legs. So, rather than say, "we give up," he said the equivalent of, "We'll be back." We'll see.

Grathuln SP Times comments wrote:

The church of scientology claim Debbie was expelled in 2007, this is inconsistent with evidence that will be presented; she left ostencibly due to ill health but remained in good standing until Jan 2012.
The email contained only questions of faith directed to other members of the church of scientology. The discussion of religion is fundimental to the 1st amendment.
The email was an ecclesiastical matter that is not for the courts and it is not for the courts to decide if Debbie's email violated a NDA; this may have been a different matter had Debbie publicized her email but she didn't and as a result their is no evidence she did.
The testimony of Debbie Cook in the hearing goes to the primary defence that any such agreement was made under duress.
There is no evidence of Debbie Cook publicly speaking against the church of scientology or its management; the church of scientology won't be able to prove the claim as to why they needed to NDA. http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientolog ... er/1214868

In response to grathuln:

oneofthem wrote:

Just a clarification to a couple of questions you posed... publication for the purposes of law can be an email sent to a single person. As to the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and exercise of religion, that protection is implicated only where the government violates those rights. The COS is not a government entity - not yet, anyway. Regardless, any NDA Ms. Cook signed may be void because of duress. There is no grounds for granting summary judgment to the Church on this one. For the record, I am a church member. And, what is going on with church management is hidden from church members until and unless someone with courage, like Debbie Cook, Hy Levy, Mike Rinder, et al, speak out against it. The technology is not flawed. But, if even one iota of what is being said by these former staffers is accurate, heads need to roll from the top down. Just sayin...

The contradictory positions CoS takes in current ongoing cases are really going to work against them imo:

Headley cases: CoS lawyers argue that the case context is bound up in "church scripture" and therefore cannot be argued in court without violating CoS constitutional rights.

Schippers case: CoS uses same argument used in Headley case.

Debbie Cook case: Here CoS argues the opposite: this is purely a contractual issue and has nothing to do with scripture.

Oh really?

Headleys signed staff contracts. These contracts say nothing about agreeing to forced labor, held against one's will in guarded confinement, forced separation from spouses, coerced abortions or being run off the road by guards.

In Schippers case, every time you "donate" to scientology for "services", you sign a "contract" that outlines basic facts about those donations. Unless the contract Schippers signed read "I waive all rights to a refund", sorry CoS. There is policy on refunds. That policy is understood to apply to these contracts for services one signs when donating.

When it works to their advantage "it's all about religion" and nothing to do with contracts.
When it works to their advantage "it's all about contracts" and nothing to do with religion.

This is the issue of "estoppel" that has been mentioned. There are many different forms of estoppel and I'm not completely sure which one applies, possibly "conflict estoppel":

wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel wrote:

“[An] inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct may not be adopted to loss or injury of another” Brand v. Farmer’s Mut. Protective Assoc of Texas, Tex. App 95 S.W.2d 994, 997. For example, as between two or more claimants, a party that takes multiple and inconsistent legal positions is estopped to assert its positions against another consistent and certain claim, i.e. preferential treatment for certain over uncertain claims.

I would really like to know how CoS lawyers distinguish between what is a "religious contract" in scientology versus what is a "legal contract".

DEBBIE COOK UN-GAGGED!!!

Who is online