Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by TinyDancer, May 30, 2011.
Thanks for the info.
This is from one year ago. Talks about abuse in the Sea Org.
Comparison between Jim Jones and David Micavidge.
This site is much better than the Marty blog, but it is interesting to note that they are very positive about LRH, despite him being the author of the original policies that are at play.
front pg material:
After Conviction, and sentencing.
my goodness. argh.
The scientology crime syndicate defended Mary Sue Hubbard, Moe Budlong, and several other scienocrims in the criminal cases brought by the U.S. Government. Likely, DM will order his bitch boy Moxon to case supervise her legal defense, but will privately curse and condemn her for getting caught.
already in this thread
Its a man, baby.
Cool. Medpage Senior Editor John was the one who did the interview with APA Prez Nada Stotland when she called the cult an anti-psychiatry hate group at the APA meeting in San Francisco in 2009.
You think anyone from that site reads the article before cutting/pasting it from other sources? The last sentence makes absolutely no sense since the omitted the context from the actual source they used.
Any Aussies know if there would be a jury involved in the trial?
Good. But we keep ripping at the wound. Tearing off long strips of rotting flesh from the wounded beast. Relentless, savage, and unstoppable.
We are the infection that will sanitize the parasitical mindset of Hubbardites. We will keep ripping and biting until others join in too, and even then we come back for more.
Scientology is essentially anti-human. It is mind pollution. It must be destroyed.
The wildebeest that is Jan Eastgate is down and will be ripped to shreds by the Anonymous' hyena jaws in due course, and for that I just love love love the Australian people.
In 1985 there were likely no mandatory reporting laws in place. Is Jan a Scientology "minister"? Because I don't see her fitting any of the usual categories of mandatory reporter.
I'm curious what statements you think are defamatory. I'm not disagreeing but nothing jumped out at me from what coverage I've read. But I've not read and seen everything so could have easily missed.
Plus this is not a case of her not reporting a crime as the poster suggest but her coaching them to lie in an effort to cover it up. Had Jan said to them what do you want to do? But she did not do that, even then I don't believe Australian law would permit her to lie herself and coach others to lie. The idea that she can hide behind some type of religious protection wont stick.
I was wondering that too. Maybe there is some nasty PR that the cult has published on the mother and daughter. If there is then could the poster of the question provide links for us? (and has the mother and daughter ever even expressed a desire to sue for defamation?).
Also, about defamation, but from the other side, you'd think that Eastgate would sue if it wasn't true that she coached an 11 year old not to report sexual abuse. I mean, it's a terrible thing to accuse someone of, and so publically, on tv and print news media. In the year since this was made public, why didn't Eastgate seek to clear her "good name"? Oh wait....
The statement that the allegations are egregiously false.
It's not a slam dunk, but an argument could be made.
Me iz not approve:
ET News - Scientology Mission Opens in Ocala, 31 May 2011
Sheesh. Like this will help anything. (Comments have been disabled, lol.)
And given that the cult still hasn't let out so much as a peep, I think the bleeding not only hasn't stopped but has gotten worse.
1. Ms Eastgate has described the allegations as "egregiously false". (IF TRUE THEN JAN LIED ABOUT THEM AND THEIR ALLEGATIONS)
2. The Church of Scientology has responded to the claims, saying it was only through the intervention of the church that Mr Kerr ultimately turned himself into police. (BULL SHIT AND A LIE)
"Not only did church staff help facilitate Carmen and her mother to report the matter to the proper authorities at the time it happened in 1985 (MAJOR BULL AND IS A CONTRADICTION TO THE CHARGES), it was only through the intervention of the church that the man responsible ultimately turned himself in to the police and was prosecuted," a church statement said.
3. "It is especially outrageous that they would make this false claim when the church had to send the man responsible to the police twice before the police finally prosecuted him." (CHURCH SAY CLAIM IS FALSE)
4. Both Ms Eastgate and the Church of Scientology say Mr Kerr went to the police in 1999 at the church's insistence. But Phoebe Rainer says Mr Kerr was told by senior scientologists he had to go to the police only after she threatened the church with legal action 13 years after the original allegations were made. (IF TRUE IT MEANS THE CULT MADE ANOTHER FALSE STATEMENT THAT MADE IT LOOKED IF MOTHER AND DAUGHTER WERE LYING)
5. But the organisation says Carmen's mother spoke extensively to a social worker at the time and elected not to pursue the matter. It says that decision was not at the church's urging. (BLAME THE MOTHER FOR ACTIONS OF THE CULT)
6. "The allegations that Ms Jan Eastgate interfered in any way with the reporting of the matter to the proper authorities are highly defamatory." (REVERSE SLADER/DEFAMATION MEANT TO DISCREDIT THE ACCUSER)
Jan also sent this email to the press:
"The family asked for my help to attend their meeting with Youth and Community Services specifically because they did not want anyone involved to undergo psychiatric treatment. It had nothing to do with the merit of of potential criminal charges".
Video time code 8:31 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUBEhc-6CCA
Funny because above the church of Scientology said "It is especially outrageous that they would make this false claim when the church had to send the man responsible to the police twice before the police finally prosecuted him." On one hand her involvement had nothing to do with charges and then she and Scientology tried to get him prosecuted. (THIS LOOKS LIKE A CASE OF JAN MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER) THEY BOTH CAN"T BE TRUE. Mind you the cult only urged him to turn himself in in 1999 after the mother started legal proceedings and not in 1985 or in any year in between. The idea that they wanted him to turn himself in all along I believe would be seen by a reasonable judge or jury as a flat out lie. Robert Kerr in his police report stated he believed that mother and daughter minimized the allegations. Why would Jan or the COS try so hard to get him to turn himself in for a crime that the police could not charge him with in 1985? Why not just turn over the info on him in 1985? Because the coaching was real and even Robert eludes to that he suspected it to be so. In the face of these above statements I suspect there is grounds for a slander suit.
At the end of the video they said Scientology called the allegations untrue. In the US one would need to prove that 1. false statements had been made 2. the person or persons making them knew they were untrue 3. depending on the situation may or may not have intended to harm with said statements and last 4. Damages can be shown by the plaintiff. I know in the UK you can sue anyone for saying anything you like even if what they say is true such as in the case of http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/5265 . I suspect Australia is not much different and in any case Jan and the COS are on record here.
Can Jan have Eileen Wuornos' lawyer, please? Thank you.
Damn you're good.
And of course the only advice Jan could give for them to avoid psychiatric treatment was to have them say it didn't happen.
Ta-da! Next case.
(And that's not even considering the fact that a minor would not have the legal capacity to make such a request.)
She's doomed, doomed as doomed can be.
I don't think denying allegations made against you by declaring them egregiously false could possibly be construed as defamatory in any jurisdiction. Such a broad interpretation would cut too deeply into speech rights, for one thing. I've never seen such an instance anywhere.
None of those statements are defamatory. Granted I'm not an AU attorney but the AU definition of defamation tracks the common law defamation relied on in the US. See here for useful page on AU defamation.
The above statements may each be false but false ≠ defamatory.
It's a bit different example taken from criminal law, but remember the case Paulette Cooper? She was put in front of the grand jury, she denied that she ever sent those bombs to the Scientology Org and she was charged with perjury.
I agree with your analysis of Eastgate's case, but somehow Paullette's case jumped into my head.
I guess perjury is an outside possibility down the road once there's been sworn testimony on the record because someone's clearly lying, but I don't see how that could be so definitively ascertained by the court given that the truth lies in unrecorded conversations that took place a few decades ago. This case is a he-said/she-said credibility test with probably no gotcha moments.
I know!!! That's why I find Paulette's case so incredible. It makes no sense to me that she was indicted for perjury, but she totally was.
Anyway, I'm derailing to thread there.
Back to slander and defamation - I totally agree with you. There is nothing there. Had Jan said - the girl was never raped, she is a liar and got paid by anonymous for her testimony, while her mother is a drug addict, then there may have been a case for slander. But not right now.
I'll volunteer for jury duty.
I have no preconceived notions.
It doesn't bother me at all that Jan Eastgate is a self-serving, hypocritical, thoughtless, abusive, wretched, skanky cock.
I'd be most impartial in judgment.
You can trust me......... I'm not like the others...........
That's because the next issue of Freedumb isn't out yet.
I disagree on that. They are said with the intent to discredit mother and daughter and are in my opinion untrue. Jan and the COS made these comments in a public forum. More over if it can be proven that Jan lied to the police and the victim suffered as a result of it as well as her coaching them they in the US could sure her as well in civil court. My point is there is grounds for a suit. In fact law reguarding this are so loose one could sue almost on any false statement as I pointed out to win the would need to prove damages and that the statements were knowing false.
If you meet the requirements for a civil action, you can sue someone for defamation, whether libel or slander, if they have written or said something bad about you. However, you must be able to prove the necessary elements of a defamation suit if you wish to collect damages.
Understanding Defamation, Libel, and Slander
Defamation can take two forms, which are generally referred to as libel and slander. Libel is defined as a defamation of a person, group, organization, product, government, or country that was made in written or printed words or in pictures. Slander is the same thing, except the defamatory statement was made in the form of spoken words, sounds, sign language, or gestures.
Reasons for a Defamation Lawsuit
You may be able to sue for defamation if:
False statements were made as if they were true.
The defamation caused damages.
In cases of defamation “per se,” damage does not have to be proven. Defamation per say may occur when the party being sued states that the defamation victim:
Had a sexually transmitted disease.
Was guilty of sexual misconduct.
Committed a crime.
Was not fit to run a business.
Winning Your Defamation Case
Filing a lawsuit is one thing, but winning it is another. To prove that defamation has occurred, you would have to first prove that the statement was indeed false. Next, you have to show that the statement harmed you. Then, you have to prove that the person making the statement did not ensure that it was true. If you are well-known, you may have prove that the statement was made with actual malice. This means, it must have been made with disregard for the truth, and with the intention of doing harm to you.
I'm sure as the thing progresses, the cult will find more and more horrible character flaws of the family. Like Montalvo and the $10,000 hard drives; an issue that leaves people wondering what that has to do with child labor and where does one get $10,000 hard drives in the first place.
It's quite likely that slander and libel will be flying from the clammy lying lips of the Scilon lawyers in hopes of distracting attention away from the fact that this woman tried to cover up the continued molestation of an 11 year old girl.
If they are slandered, I would hope there would be legal recourse. A nice public apology and wad of cash a 'a Bonnie Woods, know what I'm sayin?
Listed comments from Jan and the COS:
It is especially outrageous that they would make this false claim
Jan Eastgate interfered in any way with the reporting of the matter to the proper authorities are highly defamatory (If she can allege it so can they)
But the organisation says Carmen's mother spoke extensively to a social worker at the time and elected not to pursue the matter.
It says that decision was not at the church's urging.
This all adds up that the cult wants the mother and daughter to be seen as liars and if these statement can be proven to have caused harm and be intentionally false to the press, yes even in the US they could be sued. This is why no comment is often used in these types of matters. They did not say we deny the charges but go so far as to lie about what action they took to discredit mother and daughter and then accuse mother and daughter as lying. Yes saying things like OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE & DEFAMATORY are saying they are liars.
This Eastgate Case has stirred a lot of emotions in me and I am LIVID at
how the Scientology Struture operates and is so Anti-Human Rights and
EVIL to the very core.
Doing some research on other Sexual Abuse Cases, led me to this here,
which I had never read before; and right now after reading it, I feel sick:
(It's the Gabriel Williams Case)
Not trying to derail, it's just that the Policy for protecting those who are
"Kha Khan", and untouchable according to COS Policy, is so against
Human Rights and Freedoms and the Laws that protect human dignity
and the rights and protection of small innocent children, has been tossed
aside by those who make their own Ethics and Laws according to an insane,
paranoid, Nut Case: L. Ron Hubbard.
I Pray this Eastgate Case opens the floodgates as in the USA "Watergate"
TICK-TOCK (We Will Battle To Complete Win)
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!