Scientology sues Debbie Cook for breaking gag agreement

Sponge · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:09 am

Church of Scientology sues longtime Clearwater leader over New Year's Eve email
Tampabay Times (formerly the St.Petersburg Times)
By Joe Childs and Thomas C.Tobin, Times Staff Writers
Jan 30, 2012
http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientolog ... ve/1213102
Also as a topic on Tampabay Times Blogs: http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/talk/cont ... ology-suit
snippet....

Quote:

The lawsuit — filed Friday in San Antonio, Texas, where Cook lives — reveals that the church paid Cook and her husband, Wayne Baumgarten, $50,000 each to remain silent about their time on church staff.

[...]

Arguing that it faced "substantial risk of imminent harm and irreparable injury," the church asked for and received an order temporarily restraining Cook and Baumgarten from saying anything more.

[...]

• They waived their First Amendment rights to free speech.

• They can never, "in perpetuity," disclose any information about the church, its staff or former staff.

• They can never publish, attempt to publish or help anyone publish any information about the church in any media, including newspapers, television, radio or the Internet.

• They can never utter a disparaging word about the church, either directly or indirectly.

The couple agreed to stiff penalties for violating the agreement, including a minimum of $100,000 for each disparaging Internet posting, each television broadcast or each newspaper story.

Quote:

[...]

Before filing the lawsuit, the church wrote Cook and Baumgarten to demand they stop violating the agreement. The lawsuit said Cook responded last Thursday, stating in an email that she would not give up her right to free speech and declaring: "If you sue me, it really doesn't matter ... I have no money to spend on an attorney."

The couple runs a fledgling marketing, public relations and advertising business — Cook Profitability Services — in a San Antonio suburb. Cook's personal Web site is asking for donations to her legal defense.

Marty Rathbun, another former Scientology executive who has been critical of the church, last week mounted a fundraising drive for the same purpose. He declined to say Monday how much had been raised but said it was enough to ably represent Cook and Baumgarten at the Feb. 9 hearing.

[...]

More in article link. Comments open.

The Lawsuit (PDF): http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2012/P ... 43_001.pdf
Her contract (PDF): http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2012/P ... 44_001.pdf
Some popcorn: :popcorn:

--------------
Other resources/discussions/links:
Previous OCMB Media Reports thread on the original story which led up to this lawsuit....
CoS Rocked By Allegations of Greed in Email to 12000 members viewtopic.php?f=11&t=47674

OCMB Opinions & Debate thread, linked to the post where this latest episode takes off: viewtopic.php?p=431402#p431402

WWP Media: https://whyweprotest.net/community/thre ... ail.99568/

ESMB: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.p ... k-in-Texas

Debbie Cook web page, with a donation link to a legal defense:
http://www.debbiecookbaumgarten.com/

lostinspace · **Joined:** Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:37 am **Posts:** 465

Just wow, C0$ got a temp restraining order on Debbie, and gee most normal staff dont get 50 grand when they leave either. Sold her soul to the devil.

bubbler · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:24 am

Oh my goodness. This is truly shocking. Thank you, Sponge, for your tireless effort.

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

And so it goes.

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

lostinspace wrote:

Just wow, C0$ got a temp restraining order on Debbie, and gee most normal staff dont get 50 grand when they leave either. Sold her soul to the devil.

The issuance of temporary restraining orders are common after lawsuits are filed. It binds both parties from speaking about the case publicly until the a hearing is heard on the lawsuit. The first hearing is on Feb. 9. The judge at that time will determine whether to continue the restraining order or to dismiss it.

Sponge · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:30 am

Tony Ortega's take, with some lawyer comment too:
Scientology Sues Debbie Cook Over Her New Year's Eve E-Mail
Village Voice. 31st Jan 2012
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... e_cook.php

Other media....
Church of Scientology alleges former exec violated nondisclosure pact
Tampa Bay business Journal (blog). 31st Jan 2012
http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/blo ... ormer.html

Wieber · **Joined:** Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm **Posts:** 8406

Help me out here. Is it not illegal to get someone to sign away any of their constitutional rights?

:popcorn:

lostinspace · **Joined:** Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:37 am **Posts:** 465

It can be done for civil matters,ie settlements to make law suits go away. An agreement like that will not hold up for criminal matters and criminal wrong doings of C0$. Could be interesting if Debbie has anything on financial wrong doings due to C0$'s tax exempt status. Some how I don't think expensive shoes and shirts count for deductions hehehehe. Further, I'm not a lawyer and many of these gag agreements signed haven't been held up in court.

Don Carlo · **Joined:** Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am **Posts:** 8106

A religious dispute* into which the courts are leary of intruding ? ! Exxxxxcellent. If Debbie wins, all the ex-CoS execs. even those with gag orders, could just frame their criticism of CoS and DM as deviation from Hubbard.

Quote:

A legitimate question therefore exists, I think, as to whether this isn't a contract dispute at all, but rather a religious dispute, which the Court could not resolve without violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment (i.e., courts are prohibited from deciding religious disputes lest they become impermissibly entangled in religious disputes), or without violating Cook and Baumgarten's First Amendment free exercise rights. If the Court is to find for Scientology over Cook/Baumgarten, it must not appear to be taking sides in a religious dispute, and that doesn't appear to be so easy a task.

from above Village Voice article.

* As opposed to a free speech dispute.

Demented LRH · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:49 pm

The CoS strategy is not to win the case but to bleed Debbie out of the money -- she will lose more than 50K to her lawyers, not to mention court expenses.

Sea Horse · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:22 pm

I read the gag order (agreement) and a legal question came to mind. If the agmt was signed at a particular time, the gag-agmt would really be for non-disclosure of what happened BEFORE the time of signing. If one party (C of S in this case) continued to commit crimes (of law or morals) after the signing, why should any gag-agmt cover FUTURE INDISCRETIONS from being talked about by the other party (Debbie Cook)?

In other words, let's say C of S commits crimes in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007. Cook signs an agmt in 2007. C of S commits crimes in 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011 that Cook finds out about. Why shouldn't she be able to communicate to others about those 2008-2011 crimes? Why would an agmt signed in 2007 cover non-disclosure of things that had neither happened nor been discovered until later?

Methinks that the clauses "or will learn" in 6A and 6B in the non-disclosure agmt is a bit broad. Tho these paragraphs seem broad, there are holes in them.

I did NOT re-read Debbie's email, but it's possible she carefully made it slip between the lines of that non-disclosure agmt.

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

If anyone read the exhibit of the nondisclosure agreement, I was wondering if you can tell who signed it on behalf of CoS. Page 10 shows the sig, with the word "secretary" in printing after the name, but the signature is unreadable as far as I can tell. It just seems off to me that an important document like this does not have the printed name of the person under the signature so you know who it is. Debbie's sig with typed name is just under this one, and is readable.

http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2012/P ... 44_001.pdf

brownjedi · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:21 pm

Now they are going to drag themselves through the mud. By suing, the cult is essentially saying that what Cook is stating is true! They sue a lot, which in turn, gives critics more and more credibility. When my family told me that the who xenu story was just made up, I asked why did the church, I almost never call it a cult to their face

, sue to keep the xenu story a trade secret. Shuts them up everytime...The cult isnt suing because Cook is lying but because she is making her factual critical statements public. Go cult lawyers!

Sea Horse · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:37 pm

whitesand wrote:

If anyone read the exhibit of the nondisclosure agreement, I was wondering if you can tell who signed it on behalf of CoS. Page 10 shows the sig, with the word "secretary" in printing after the name, but the signature is unreadable as far as I can tell. It just seems off to me that an important document like this does not have the printed name of the person under the signature so you know who it is. Debbie's sig with typed name is just under this one, and is readable.
http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2012/P ... 44_001.pdf

I had wondered about that, too.

Also there's no date next to the signatures. The signing could very well have taken place long after the printed date at the beginning of the document.

Also, not all documents are admissible in court. We in the USA generally think documents are considered "evidence" and that they stand on their own, but there are hearsay rules as regards documents being presented in court. It's possible that unless the person who originally signed it is present in court and can be questioned and cross-examined, the defense attorney can claim hearsay for that document. Without the document, C of S has no case.

And if C of S drags someone into court to say they were the person signing it, they would to a degree have to prove they were the one signing it. Under cross-examination, that could introduce some doubt as to the veracity of the document and the admissibility of the document into evidence.

Disclaimer: IANAL (I am not a lawyer)

Are there any attorneys here who could chime in about this document?

Edit: I just remembered that C of S probably videotaped the signing. In which case, they would have to present that video. It might show some signs of duress or coersion of Cook. Just a thought.

Sea Horse · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:40 pm

brownjedi wrote:

Now they are going to drag themselves through the mud. By suing, the cult is essentially saying that what Cook is stating is true! They sue a lot, which in turn, gives critics more and more credibility. When my family told me that the who xenu story was just made up, I asked why did the church, I almost never call it a cult to their face

, sue to keep the xenu story a trade secret. Shuts them up everytime...The cult isnt suing because Cook is lying but because she is making her factual critical statements public. Go cult lawyers!

I don't think anyone can legally gag knowledge of a crime. In other words, if Cook was simply disclosing a prior crime, CofS cannot claim that Cook signed away her rights to disclose it. That argument won't fly in court any more than someone trying to sue to uphold a contract to pimp a girl or enslave any worker or pay for an illegal drug delivery.

Scientology sues Debbie Cook for breaking gag agreement

Who is online