One opened, more to come!
It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:11 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 304 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 21  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Posts: 2490
Location: New York City, NY, USA
I think that Smurf is right -- if Debbie did not sign an agreement with Marty about raising money on her behalf, he puts himself in legal danger by asking for donations. CoS cannot sue him for that, but Debbie can. Besides, the authorities may want to investigate him if they think that he might have pocketed the money.

_________________
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
AFAICT Marty has not done anything illegal. It's just more speculation that he will/might/could do something illegal: the usual Indies-are-guilty-before-they've-actually-done-anything sort of thing.

I'm not saying that Marty is beyond doing something stupid. I just don't think this will be that. Of course DM-Bots would love to set him up. But I also think he's well aware of that.

As I wrote, I don't see that trying to help Debbie this way has to be turned into something dishonorable. I see it as the best help she can get right now because I'm sure whatever the specific facts are, I know Scieno-Corp well enough to know they are coming down on her very hard- in SOME way, for sure. This fund might give her another option or get her to see how things work outside the system.

I think some people just see this as another opportunity for Marty-bashing. I've bashed Marty too but I do it when I actually witness him doing something I consider to be wrong, negligent or stupid.

I known it's not popular to "defend" Marty here. But I've both defended him and criticized him, as I see the facts that relate to him.

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Posts: 2490
Location: New York City, NY, USA
I do not know whether Marty did or did not do something illegal. Someone said at this thread that he wants to establish the Debbie fund. I do not think that this is a bright idea, unless Debbie asked him to do that on her behalf. He could get in trouble for doing it. But this is just a possibility. It is also quite possible that nothing bad would happen to him. I’m saying that he should consider all outcomes before deciding to go ahead with the fund. But this is his decision to make, not mine.

_________________
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am
Posts: 2681
Dorothy wrote:
AFAICT Marty has not done anything illegal. It's just more speculation that he will/might/could do something illegal: the usual Indies-are-guilty-before-they've-actually-done-anything sort of thing. I known it's not popular to "defend" Marty here. But I've both defended him and criticized him, as I see the facts that relate to him.
You're missing the point, entirely. If someone started soliciting donations for a sick child, let's say, and you donated money to it, then learned that the parents of the child neither asked for the fund-raising drive, nor authorized it, and the person soliciting the funds told you that the money you contributed would NOT go to helping the sick child NOR would it be returned to you, I'd suspect you'd be pretty angry about this. You'd want to know what your donation was being used for.

Marty posted that he would not return any donations even if Debbie declined them. That smacks of fraud & misrepresentation. It has zero to do with Marty-bashing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 14692
Location: U.K.
Dorothy wrote:
AFAICT Marty has not done anything illegal. It's just more speculation that he will/might/could do something illegal: the usual Indies-are-guilty-before-they've-actually-done-anything sort of thing.

I'm not saying that Marty is beyond doing something stupid. I just don't think this will be that. Of course DM-Bots would love to set him up. But I also think he's well aware of that.

As I wrote, I don't see that trying to help Debbie this way has to be turned into something dishonorable. I see it as the best help she can get right now because I'm sure whatever the specific facts are, I know Scieno-Corp well enough to know they are coming down on her very hard- in SOME way, for sure. This fund might give her another option or get her to see how things work outside the system.

I think some people just see this as another opportunity for Marty-bashing. I've bashed Marty too but I do it when I actually witness him doing something I consider to be wrong, negligent or stupid.

I known it's not popular to "defend" Marty here. But I've both defended him and criticized him, as I see the facts that relate to him.

As far as I'm concerned, it is nothing to do with "marty-bashing". A lot of that is done for its own sake. I'll credit him when he does something right and I'll criticise him when he does something stupid like this.

Even if you disregard the split opinion on whether the details of what he is doing is ethically or legally right or wrong, he is now following the cult's playbook. Now they have all they need to use the "guilt by association" thing to handle the flap and turn off a section of Debbie Cook's potential audience. You know, those scientologists who might be persuaded but would equally welcome the easy option of an officially approved excuse not to trust her. The official line will be "she is being paid by Rathbun, a known and proven squirrel".

It was actually better when Marty remained partly skeptical and out of the loop. That's what was unique about the whole Debbie Cook email thing in the first place...... it was nothing to do with Marty's indies and it was nothing to do with anonymous or critics of scientology in general. No SPs, squirrels, eebil psychs or any other demons were involved.

If Marty wants to set up some kind of general purpose defense/offense fund which has a "slim chance" of being refunded if not used then I really don't think he should be using Debbie Cook as the vehicle for it.
Right now, we have absolutely no evidence that she either needs help or has asked for it. I know she already knows that there are people willing to help in various ways. I say there is more useful mileage in simply waiting.
If somebody wants to plan something off their own bat in advance and if it is not going to be transparent then perhaps they should do the whole thing privately, where it can be transparent among close friends.

Even if a lawsuit eventually arrives then lets wait to see what it says. There's no panic. However, I think the cult would be wary about suing because it just draws masses more attention to it, plus it has the caveat of David Miscavige's worst nightmare..... being brought into wog court as a witness and the high likelyhood of him sayig something he'll regret for the rest of his days. This is likely why they don't sue Rathbun or Rinder, and they know it, so quite why Rathbun suddenly thinks Debbie Cook needs a defense/offense fund is beyond me because she would have a prime reason to bring David Miscavige personally into any legal proceedings against her.

_________________
WWW.XENU-DIRECTORY.NET Awesome document/media resources
Other Activism: Divided By Zero forum, Why We Protest forum
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am
Posts: 2681
Sponge wrote:
If Marty wants to set up some kind of general purpose defense/offense fund which has a "slim chance" of being refunded if not used then I really don't think he should be using Debbie Cook as the vehicle for it. Right now, we have absolutely no evidence that she either needs help or has asked for it.

Even if a lawsuit eventually arrives then lets wait to see what it says. There's no panic. However, I think the cult would be wary about suing because it just draws masses more attention to it, plus it has the caveat of David Miscavige's worst nightmare.
The cult, as an entity, would not sue Marty. It would be individual Scilons claiming they were lied to & swindled. One only has to be reminded of OSA's playbook in bringing down the Cult Awareness Network. A handful of Scilons, under OSA's umbrella, submitted membership applications to CAN, openly admitting to be Scilons, wanting to join. The applications were rejected, and the Scilons used this as a forum to sue CAN. More Scilons attempted to join, were rejected, and they sued.

Multiple lawsuits filed by public Scilons, in different jurisdictions throughout the U.S. (to prevent judges from lumping cases together), all claiming they were being discriminated against, violating CAN's non-profit status, and federal discrimination laws, and as one case was dismissed, another two would be filed. A lawsuit was filed in my name. It broke CAN's back financially & forced them into bankruptcy. All of the individual cases were coordinated, filed & paid for from OSA's war chest (to pay for litigation).

I could see public Scilons, individually, filing lawsuits against Marty, claiming they donated money anonymously & were swindled. Of course, anyone that knew about the games that OSA plays, would know who was guiding & financing the lawsuits, but the courts don't care about that. Their only concern is the merit of the cases.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9281
I agree - CoS members could happily donate to Marty, planning to sue him for whatever mistake he makes in describing the fund-raising project, filing the paperwork or inviting people to donate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
Sponge wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, it is nothing to do with "marty-bashing". A lot of that is done for its own sake. I'll credit him when he does something right and I'll criticise him when he does something stupid like this.

Even if you disregard the split opinion on whether the details of what he is doing is ethically or legally right or wrong, he is now following the cult's playbook. Now they have all they need to use the "guilt by association" thing to handle the flap and turn off a section of Debbie Cook's potential audience. You know, those scientologists who might be persuaded but would equally welcome the easy option of an officially approved excuse not to trust her. The official line will be "she is being paid by Rathbun, a known and proven squirrel".

It was actually better when Marty remained partly skeptical and out of the loop. That's what was unique about the whole Debbie Cook email thing in the first place...... it was nothing to do with Marty's indies and it was nothing to do with anonymous or critics of scientology in general. No SPs, squirrels, eebil psychs or any other demons were involved.

If Marty wants to set up some kind of general purpose defense/offense fund which has a "slim chance" of being refunded if not used then I really don't think he should be using Debbie Cook as the vehicle for it.
Right now, we have absolutely no evidence that she either needs help or has asked for it. I know she already knows that there are people willing to help in various ways. I say there is more useful mileage in simply waiting.
If somebody wants to plan something off their own bat in advance and if it is not going to be transparent then perhaps they should do the whole thing privately, where it can be transparent among close friends.

Even if a lawsuit eventually arrives then lets wait to see what it says. There's no panic. However, I think the cult would be wary about suing because it just draws masses more attention to it, plus it has the caveat of David Miscavige's worst nightmare..... being brought into wog court as a witness and the high likelyhood of him sayig something he'll regret for the rest of his days. This is likely why they don't sue Rathbun or Rinder, and they know it, so quite why Rathbun suddenly thinks Debbie Cook needs a defense/offense fund is beyond me because she would have a prime reason to bring David Miscavige personally into any legal proceedings against her.

This ^ is pretty much what I was thinking initially. But now I suspect there is much going on behind the scenes, and there's info we're not privy to. I can't say for sure whether Marty is messing things up re: Debbie Cook or not- yet. I was very critical of his "contribution" to the Headley lawsuit, and still am. This may be different. If he's right that the Cult's whore-yers Yingling et al refused to go after Debbie, well that in itself is pretty huge. Moxin is a terrible lawyer (because he's really just a DM-Bot) who's on a losing streak, isn't he? The fact that there is a fund of unknown size and legal support that Debbie can tap into if she chooses, probably causes a twitch in the eye of the cult's psyche. So far the Cult apparatus has not been able to destroy Marty, in spite of all they've invested. In fact their efforts have only backfired, weakened themselves and have probably made Marty stronger. He's still alive and kicking. That says something. The fact that he's offering her this kind of back-up changes the game whether she accepts the help or not. So I'm not so sure it's really a fail strategy. We'll see.

I hope Debbie realizes she has not just one upper hand, but two. She wants to "save her Church" but her church died a long time ago. She needs to realize that if her church is alive at all it doesn't live in the buildings or the bank accounts, corporate apparatuses or even in those "in good standing". It only lives in the hearts and minds of the ones who still believe in something more than that. I suspect she still has a lot to figure out. She can try and separate herself from those who are "not in good standing". But as soon as she opened her mouth and said the wrong thing openly her "church" launched a campaign to destroy her status and reputation. What do you suppose she learned from that? There's a power play going on right now. Marty is showing his strength. Which way will Debbie go? I doubt she wants to go back to the garbage can and a sign hanging around her neck while her face is being slapped.

Smurf wrote:
I could see public Scilons, individually, filing lawsuits against Marty, claiming they donated money anonymously & were swindled. Of course, anyone that knew about the games that OSA plays, would know who was guiding & financing the lawsuits, but the courts don't care about that. Their only concern is the merit of the cases.

I don't understand this ^ or what scenario you're describing. How does one sue over a donation they never made? You'd have to have evidence of a donation for any lawsuit to proceed. If you "donate anonymously", how can you expect a refund? How can a person be "swindled" if they make it impossible to be refunded? You're not making sense to me. Maybe you could be more specific as to what the heck you are talking about.

Don Carlo wrote:
I agree - CoS members could happily donate to Marty, planning to sue him for whatever mistake he makes in describing the fund-raising project, filing the paperwork or inviting people to donate.
All he has to do it provide an accounting of each donation. Not very hard to do. If Debbie accepts the help, then no one can complain as that is exactly what they donated for. I agree he's probably placing a bet and putting himself on the line. I guess that's his prerogative.

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am
Posts: 2681
Dorothy wrote:
Smurf wrote:
I could see public Scilons, individually, filing lawsuits against Marty, claiming they donated money anonymously & were swindled. Of course, anyone that knew about the games that OSA plays, would know who was guiding & financing the lawsuits, but the courts don't care about that. Their only concern is the merit of the cases.
I don't understand this ^ or what scenario you're describing. How does one sue over a donation they never made? You'd have to have evidence of a donation for any lawsuit to proceed. If you "donate anonymously", how can you expect a refund? How can a person be "swindled" if they make it impossible to be refunded? You're not making sense to me. Maybe you could be more specific as to what the heck you are talking about.
Sure. It would help if you paid attention the posts and how I replied to them, so I don't have to repeat myself. One can't sue another if no donation was made.

However, if I make a $100 donation, say, to Marty by money order & sign it as Garry Anonymous or Dorothy Oz & mail it by registered mail (proof that my donation had made it to it's destination) and I learn the money was not used as it was solicited, and Marty chooses not to return the proceeds to me, regardless of his reasons, I would have grounds to sue Marty for fraud & misrepresentation.

I would have the screenprints of Marty's blog soliciting the donations, I have a copy of the money order, and the post office receipt showing the donation was delivered to the address mentioned in Marty's solicitation. The money order does not have to have my legal name on it. Marty could make an issue of it in court, but I could testify, given the climate with which I made the donation, I felt more secure it providing an alias on the money order.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm
Posts: 9025
Smurf wrote:
Dorothy wrote:
Smurf wrote:
I could see public Scilons, individually, filing lawsuits against Marty, claiming they donated money anonymously & were swindled. Of course, anyone that knew about the games that OSA plays, would know who was guiding & financing the lawsuits, but the courts don't care about that. Their only concern is the merit of the cases.
I don't understand this ^ or what scenario you're describing. How does one sue over a donation they never made? You'd have to have evidence of a donation for any lawsuit to proceed. If you "donate anonymously", how can you expect a refund? How can a person be "swindled" if they make it impossible to be refunded? You're not making sense to me. Maybe you could be more specific as to what the heck you are talking about.
Sure. It would help if you paid attention the posts and how I replied to them, so I don't have to repeat myself. One can't sue another if no donation was made.

However, if I make a $100 donation, say, to Marty by money order & sign it as Garry Anonymous or Dorothy Oz & mail it by registered mail (proof that my donation had made it to it's destination) and I learn the money was not used as it was solicited, and Marty chooses not to return the proceeds to me, regardless of his reasons, I would have grounds to sue Marty for fraud & misrepresentation.

I would have the screenprints of Marty's blog soliciting the donations, I have a copy of the money order, and the post office receipt showing the donation was delivered to the address mentioned in Marty's solicitation. The money order does not have to have my legal name on it. Marty could make an issue of it in court, but I could testify, given the climate with which I made the donation, I felt more secure it providing an alias on the money order.


In addition to that the point of the suit is not to win it but to tie up Marty in court and get him spending money on lawyers. At the same time the amount of the donation would have to be fairly large as a small one would go to a small claims court and the settlement would be the amount of the donation plus court costs, which would be the filing fee for the suit.

Marty could cover his ass by getting agreement that the fund is a general one for anyone in Debbie's situation and then returning donations to anyone who disagreed with that.

_________________
"Disconnection is both an act of war and an admission of defeat."
Jon Atack

Image
http://www.worldcat.org./profiles/Wieber/lists/563909


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
Smurf wrote:
However, if I make a $100 donation, say, to Marty by money order & sign it as Garry Anonymous or Dorothy Oz & mail it by registered mail (proof that my donation had made it to it's destination) and I learn the money was not used as it was solicited, and Marty chooses not to return the proceeds to me, regardless of his reasons, I would have grounds to sue Marty for fraud & misrepresentation.

Okay, thanks for the example. I think the key here is "and I learn the money was not used as it was solicited". So how is he soliciting it?

1. He doesn't say Debbie has been sued. He says she has been threatened.
2. He says up front that Debbie and Wayne have not agreed to accept the donations and that their acceptance of the funds is not under his control.
3. He promises to account for the funds, not a difficult thing to do at all.

(I searched the articles and comments and could not find where he says the donations would not be refunded if Debbie does not accept it)

So even if you were to "learn the money was not used as it was solicited" he's got you covered, because the way he solicited it places no guarantee that the funds will ever go to Debbie, you see? Stupid? or brilliant?

Marty Rathbun wrote:
Now, Soter is being used to threaten Debbie Cook Baumgarten and her husband Wayne into shivering silence. David Miscavige, who pulls Moxon’s chain, figures he can shudder them into silence by the sheer financial strain of threat of litigation...

Whether Debbie and Wayne choose to utilize the formidable array of legal talent we are assembling or not is not completely under my control...

As I have done in the past, I will account for every single penny collected for the defense fund...
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am
Posts: 2681
Dorothy wrote:
Okay, thanks for the example. I think the key here is "and I learn the money was not used as it was solicited". So how is he soliciting it?

1. He doesn't say Debbie has been sued. He says she has been threatened.
2. He says up front that Debbie and Wayne have not agreed to accept the donations and that their acceptance of the funds is not under his control.
3. He promises to account for the funds, not a difficult thing to do at all.

(I searched the articles and comments and could not find where he says the donations would not be refunded if Debbie does not accept it)
Then, you need reading glasses. Read his blog. Marty posted.. "Anything unused can be returned. But, the chances of that are slim." Why do you think it was important for Marty to post that last line.."chances are slim?"

If someone is asking for, and receiving donations (which Marty now acknowledges he has received upwards of $50,000 from multiple states in the U.S. and Europe), for a fund that was not requested, nor authorized by Debbie, and states the chances of refunding the donations are "slim", what is Marty using the money for?

Mickey - January 23, 2012 at 7:29 pm

Marty, just a housekeeping note on donations. If for some reason Debbie and her team do not wish to utilize the funds you are collecting, the funds will be quickly returned to the donors, unless the donors say otherwise. Yes?

martyrathbun09 - January 23, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Not quite. We are putting the defense (offense) together now, and paying for it. This message alone in today’s post was worth 50K in defense impact. Anything unused can be returned. But, the chances of that are slim.

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... /#comments


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
Thanks, Smurf. Actually I'm near-sighted and don't need reading glasses. Guess I skimmed through the comments too fast. I don't exactly enjoy reading Marty blog comments.

You've solidified the points I'm making. The terms/parameters of these donations are either stated clearly and/or intentionally ambiguous. Either way, he's covered his bases.
Quote:
Anything unused can be returned. But, the chances of that are slim.

Sounds like he's saying the chances of there being any unused funds left- are slim, not that he refuses to return unused funds.

What I want to know is, how does one "put together a defense and pay for it" for a person who hasn't even been sued yet, and who hasn't accepted your help? That's why I wrote there's got to be more info we're not privy to.

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am
Posts: 9281
He could call it a Support Fund instead of a Defense Fund. Lots of fan clubs exist without the approval of the celebrity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Debbie Cook Speaks 12/31/2011
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:10 am
Posts: 2681
Don Carlo wrote:
He could call it a Support Fund instead of a Defense Fund. Lots of fan clubs exist without the approval of the celebrity.
Fan clubs, generally, don't solicit dues or funds claiming they are on behalf of the celebrity. In cases where this has occurred, the sites were shut down and the owners sued.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 304 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 21  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSNbot Media and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group