Thanks for your input, Sea Horse. Good observation on the lack of date by the signatures. Also, the sigs are not notarized, but that may not mean anything depending on state statute.

I was also thinking along the lines that the CoS signer would be deposed by the defense, and/or subpoenaed as a trial witness. The word secretary had me wondering as to this person's level. A secretary can be a low level clerical person, or can be a very powerful person in an organization. A higher level person makes more sense to sign this, but you never know. Whoever they are, they can't be too happy about possibly getting a subpoena.

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

The signature above Debbie Cook's signature in the nondisclosure agreement is that of Glen E. Stilo, Secretary of CSFSO.

THE CREED OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

The Creed of the Church of Scientology was written by L. Ron Hubbard shortly after the Church was formed in Los Angeles on February 18, 1954.

After Mr. Hubbard issued this creed from his office in Phoenix, Arizona, the Church of Scientology adopted it as its creed because it succinctly states what Scientologists believe.
We of the Church believe

That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.

That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.

That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.

That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.

That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.

That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.

That the souls of men have the rights of men.

That the study of the Mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields.

And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.

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)?

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.

The judge could also request they return the $100,000 they took to void the contract.

If you read the NDA, Debbie & Wayne agreed to never speak about Scientology again from the date they signed the agreement, i.e., if they heard of a major crime taking place in the cult yesterday, they can't talk about it.

The Church of Scientology relies heavily on First Amendment religious freedoms to shield itself from scrutiny in this country, but it is awfully quick to suppress freedom of speech that enjoys the same constitutional protections. The same church that raises the specter of Nazi oppression whenever it faces inquiry from German and French officials, expects its former, hardworking employees in the United States to sign away their free speech rights for as little as $500 in severance. The First Amendment is not a buffet where some rights are recognized and other inconvenient ones are ignored.

The hypocrisy is clear in the church's latest retaliation against a former employee who dared to speak out even as she attempted to provoke reforms from within. Debbie Cook, the church's former longtime leader in Clearwater, is now facing a lawsuit in Texas for allegedly violating her 2007 severance agreement. On New Year's Eve, her letter urging Scientologists to work internally to reform the church's aggressive fundraising tactics and other practices reached thousands of church members via email and became widely publicized, including in the Tampa Bay Times.

[...continues in article link...]

Smurfie Dearest,

Your idea of law is a bit strange. If the judge declares the contract void, then the contract never existed and Cook/Baumgarten didn't violate anything. Like I said, no one can legally gag someone from disclosing a crime. No judge will uphold a contract to stay mum about a crime.

If you read the NDA, Debbie & Wayne agreed to never speak about Scientology again from the date they signed the agreement, i.e., if they heard of a major crime taking place in the cult yesterday, they can't talk about it.

QUESTION: If an employer is using illegal practices in their business, can that void a non disclosure agreement?

(Kevin asked) Employer used state paid interns (claiming non profit status) and non paid interns to operate a for profit business (Determined by Labor and Industries) Emloyer is now suing former employees over non disclosue agreement. Even though those employees have not violated agreement. Can the employees ask that the NDA contract be voided?

Kevin,
Generally, one cannot use contract to conceal illegal activity. Enforcement of an NDA is a matter of law and equity and an employer in these circumstances has unclean hands. If this has not been done already, a terminated employee might want to consider filing a whistleblower claim with the IRS. It would appear that the employer is engaging in activity that constitutes tax fraud. The whistleblower could recover a hefty reward. ...
Kevin--I think the answer will depend on whether the illegality goes to the NDA. In other words, is the Employer alleging that the former employees are revealing it s illegal business practices and is this what the employer is trying to prevent? In this case, I would say yes, the employees could ask for the contract to be declared void and of no effect since as a matter of public policy a contract cannot be used to facilitate or protect illegal acts nor can the subject matter of a contract be something that is otherwise illegal. If, however, the Employer is seeking to enforce the NDA on another matter that is not related to its alleged illegal activities (e.g. to protect trade secrets for example), I do not think that the alleged illegal behavior is relevant to the enforcement of the NDA. ...

I believe the remedy you are seeking here is a declaratory judgment.
That said, the jurisdiction in question may have a better remedy if the employer filing civil actions to cover up criminal activity.
...
If the employees did not violate the agreement then you do not need to go to the cost of voiding the agreement as the simple defence is they did not breach it. It would be worth "throwing in" some evidence about the illegality though as it could help colour the view of the judge.

English law like US has a concept that you cannot come to the court with unclean hands although my view in this case is that your stronger poiont is that they did not breach the agreement in the first place rather than trying to prove a more complex issue of whether the other illegality taints the rest which is much harder to prove.

My comment: This discussion may help. I personally don't know what advice to give Debbie.