Easier said, than done, Chuck. Some judges have the ability to prevent money judgements from being written off in bankruptcy, especially if the court-ordered judgement was in response to a legal violation. That may or may not be the case with Debbie & Wayne.

If D & W ignored all the legal crap, and simply defaulted on everything, they've effectively waived their rights to appeal decisions rendered against them.

(Thanks for the edit, chuckbeatty. Your latest edit reads a lot better than the first draft.)

In the state the economy is in, bankruptcy is always on one's mind (of most people), so this might be a really good strategy. If C of S "wins" the case with a monetary judgment, they cannot refile if Cook/Baumgarten file bankruptcy (getting the monetary judgment included in the bankruptcy case).

I guess the only thing I would want to make sure (if it were me, not Cook/Baumgarten) would be that I could continue to say whatever I wanted and not be enjoined (by a court) from utterances in the future.

I meant "go bankrupt" by paying OFF the decision in full, until you have nothing left, and if that means being garnished for years then there has to be an end somewhere, a final bill, and that's the "price of freedom". I'd pay it, and be in debt and be garnished, serve jail time, but I'd not let someone shut me up!

Yesterday, Debbie Cook began her defense against Scientology's lawsuit which seeks $300,000 in damages because she dared to speak out to her fellow church members in an e-mail sent on New Year's Eve.

Cook, through her newly hired San Antonio attorney, Ray B. Jeffrey, filed to dissolve the temporary restraining order that Scientology was granted a week ago which prevents her from talking to anyone -- even her own husband -- about the case or about Scientology. Friday morning, a hearing will be held over Cook's motion, but we are learning that the real fireworks are coming next Thursday, when a hearing about a temporary injunction will give Cook the opportunity to introduce evidence that Jeffrey characterizes as "beyond the pale of what a human being should endure."

We spoke at length with Jeffrey today about Cook's plans to fight back against Scientology, and about his own preparations for what he acknowledges is likely to be a long, and brutal contest.

According to Jeffrey's website, he's a veteran of more than 75 trials since 1989, and served as the mayor of Bulverde, a San Antonio suburb, for a couple of years.

[...much more in article link...]

I meant "go bankrupt" by paying OFF the decision in full, until you have nothing left, and if that means being garnished for years then there has to be an end somewhere, a final bill, and that's the "price of freedom".

I'd pay it, and be in debt and be garnished, serve jail time, but I'd not let someone shut me up!

That's alot easier said than done, Chuck. I seriously doubt you'd be willing to be garnished a substantial portion of your income (25% of gross, before taxes taken out) for the rest of your life.

Do you remember OG critic Grady Ward?

"In 1996, the Church of Scientology sued Ward, alleging that he was responsible for anonymous postings of material to which the Church claimed copyright. After years of litigation in which Ward defended himself pro per & responded to more than 1000 docket items in the Northern District of California, San Jose, the lawsuit was eventually settled on May 12, 1998. Ward prevailed on the Church's trade secret claim resulting in a dismissal with prejudice, but agreed to a stipulated judgement on Scientology's copyright claim.

Without a finding of liability by Ward, he agreed to pay Scientology $200 a month for life. Unusually for legal settlements with the Church of Scientology, the settlement was not secret, and contained no restrictions on what Ward could say about Scientology. The settlement itself became a source of ongoing legal dispute with two appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but to date it has not been violated by either party."

Unless you're Paris Hilton or Donald Trump, paying the cult $2,400 a year.. for life.. has to suck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grady_Ward

That's alot easier said than done, Chuck. I seriously doubt you'd be willing to be garnished a substantial portion of your income (25% of gross, before taxes taken out) for the rest of your life.

Do you remember OG critic Grady Ward?

"In 1996, the Church of Scientology sued Ward, alleging that he was responsible for anonymous postings of material to which the Church claimed copyright. After years of litigation in which Ward defended himself pro per & responded to more than 1000 docket items in the Northern District of California, San Jose, the lawsuit was eventually settled on May 12, 1998. Ward prevailed on the Church's trade secret claim resulting in a dismissal with prejudice, but agreed to a stipulated judgement on Scientology's copyright claim.

Without a finding of liability by Ward, he agreed to pay Scientology $200 a month for life. Unusually for legal settlements with the Church of Scientology, the settlement was not secret, and contained no restrictions on what Ward could say about Scientology. The settlement itself became a source of ongoing legal dispute with two appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but to date it has not been violated by either party."

Unless you're Paris Hilton or Donald Trump, paying the cult $2,400 a year.. for life.. has to suck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grady_Ward

What's Grady's address? What is Grady's email address?

I pm'd you. Grady stopped protesting the cult in the late 90s. I believe Graham Berry represented Grady, or assisted him in his litigation. He might have info on Grady. I know that Grady "rescinded" his settlement agreement with the cult and faced alot of litigation for violating it, but don't know what happened with it.

http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/gward1.htm

http://www.skeptictank.org/gwardco2.htm

http://twitter.com/GradyWard

It's the super-strict gag order the Church of Scientology doesn't want you to see. Now, we can reveal what the church is willing to do to defend its reputation and keep its secrets in-house.

All this fricking legal BS.

If I were Debbie, I'd just hire a cheap local lawyer, and not worry about losing, in fact I'd just do the minimum, and if that's losing, then SO WHAT?

Pay off the decision, go bankrupt, and just NOT get all wrapped up in the legal crap, and worry that one's lawyer(s) were bad or whatever.

Losing to unprincipled Scientology lawyers is NOT a loss in the public's mind.

She should give back the wealth (money or whatever settlement she got from Scientology for signing that gag agreement).

I say her best course is lose, go bankrupt, pay whoever needs be paid with whatever assets she has, and that's it.

Regain her freedom of speech, and start over. But start over FREE!!!!!

And if your defense wins, then good! But be prepared to lose, and go bankrupt, etc, but in all cases regain your freedom of speech publicly!

Australia's Current Affair..

Scientologists silenced
A Current Affair. 9News. Brodacast:February 03, 2012:
VIDEO: http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video/sci ... ?from=news

[...]

The full statement from the Church of Scientology:

"This is a breach-of-contract case. As is common with defendants in such cases, Debbie Cook wants to divert attention away from her lack of compliance with the terms she voluntarily agreed to in the contract."

"The Church has asked the court to enforce the plain terms of its contract with the defendants, because the defendants wilfully breached their valid agreements and are likely to do so again.

"The one and only legitimate issue in this case is whether the Baumgartens can take all of the benefits of an agreement, then wilfully disregard the obligations they voluntarily promised to abide by in exchange for the benefits they wanted and received."

Read out Q&A with the Church of Scientology International below:

Q: What was Debbie Cook’s role in the COS?
A: She was a full time staff member of the Sea Organization at the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, Florida.

Q:What is the purpose of asking former members to sign non-disclosure agreements?
A: Non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements are common amongst institutions in countries around the world. It is good and common practice for companies, government offices, charities or religious organizations such as the Church of Scientology, to implement such agreements.

Q:Are all former members asked to sign these agreements?
A: No. These agreements apply in select cases where contracts are appropriate and of benefit to both parties.

Q: Are members who sign an agreement given a copy for their records?
A: Someone who asks for a copy is provided with a copy.

Q: Why does the church seek financial restitution from former members if they breach the orders?
A: The Church complied with all of its promises. We expect other parties to comply with theirs.

Q: How does the church arrive at these figures?
A: It is detailed in the contract and by the evidence.

Q: The Church is suing Cook for breaching her agreement. What does it hope to gain from that?
A: A court finding requiring the defendants to comply with the terms of their agreement as written.