Jan Eastgate head of CCHR ARRESTED

How do folks feel about drafting a open letter to groups that represent child abuse at the hands of religious clergy and try to get them to actively campaign media and politicians? The report that Intelligence listed and case histories could make for an inviting cause for them to take up.

All my solidarity to the president of CCHR, considered an hero by million of people,
(scientologists and not Scientologists alike) for her efforts to save hundreds of people by
closing down many Australian killer psychiatrists "hospitals" in 1990.
And for her continuous efforts to save lives of many and countless children around the world.
I hope that Australian judiciary system will also take that in account and recognize it.
-- marcotai

Have now sent emails to (John Sweeney and) 10 different FOX show depts - dislike FOX, but what the hell - & Yahoo as well as:

Nathan Baca: nbaca@8newsnow.com
Anderson Cooper: anderson.cooper@turner.com
AC 360: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?10 (may have already posted)
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10285339/
Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/services/contactus.html?from=stnv

Other ideas?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I JUST SHIT PANTS! Listen to even how that sounds "Australian killer psychiatrists" that is like Killer Clowns From Outer Space! It sounds like a nut just said that. But the cool part is the poster is acknowledging what Jan did but wants the court to acknowledge her contributions of being the head of an organization that:
1. Is a front group for Scientology wich is loosing its tax status and was the catalyst for change in Australia tax law for their abuses.
2. Publicly states Psychiatry is responsible for the death camps in WW2.
3. Has a history of targeting all psychiatrist for ruin.
4. Tries to practice medicine without a license in such as they promote taking people off their meds like the son of Elli Perkins.

and all their other lies and abuses, YEAH I WANT THE JUDGE TO CONCEDER HER CCHR TIES TOO> LOL Even better yet she was the head of a group that claims to defend human rights and then she subverts them. That is like a police officer who is dealing drugs. Judges and juries don't look kindly on those types of folks from what I can tell. All being said I hope she gets a break too if and only if she admits to what she did, denounces the cult mentality and makes a public apology. I don't believe any person is above redemption but they need to make real change in their life. As I said before knowing Jan and the cult I won't hold my breath.

Why are you posting as 'anonymous" but using your online handle? Fail.
Go back to YouTube, marcotai.

i dont want anon hate monger cult find out my true identity
--marcotai

HAHAHAHAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I just shit again! LOL keep going, you are so funny!

fify

^

child abuse and bigottry must stop!!!!!
-- marcotai

Yes, it must, but if the immediate response to abuse is to cover it up and pretend it didn't happen, abuse will never stop.

Typical scientology spin to the "wog media" and their use of the confusion technique.
http://changingminds.org/principles/confusion.htm
"The most common way of confusing someone is simply to overload them. Just keep giving them things until they crack. It is especially effective if what you are saying is of interested and makes them think and want to respond.
Overload is multiplied when what is being communicated is complex or difficult to understand. This effectively shortens the time to the point where the other person becomes overloaded and needs to stop and process the information given to them.
There are many written and unwritten rules of conversation and interpersonal communication. People expect you to follow those rules. If you break them, they will quickly become confused."

Wow you allege this guy is a source for the SP times so naturally every thing the SP Times says must be a lie LOL Oh and he joined Anonymous, got his membership number? Sounds like a whacked out conspiracy. Just like cult thinking. Hey have you heard the OT8 Wally Hanks audio where he is beating up a kid while telling the kid to look at pictures of L Ron Hubbard? Have you seen the Tommy Gorman reports where his girlfriend was raped by a Scientology member and the cult tried to protect him too? How about Amy Scobbe being rapped at age 16 and Scientology covering that up? Or the guy that had on little girl fall down the stairs in your cult building and the other little girl OD'd on Nicene in Australia? Where was the CCHR then? Where was Jan Eastgate? They were promoting the abuses but you have your little video about a guy no one haver heard of as if that what, disproves that Jan is a criminal? LOL Subterfuge time. Don't deal with reality time to live a lie. LOL YOUR CULT IS GOING DOWN LIKE THE LITTLE BITH IT IS AND I LAUGH AT IDOITS LIKE YOU AS YOU MAKE IT ENTERTAINING TO THE LAST LOL.

Sent moar emails:

St. Petersburg Times: comments@sptimes.com
Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/about/chi-email-newstips,0,2569758.customform
LA Times Vice Pres. of Communications: nancy.sullivan@latimes.com (?)
NY Times: news-tips@nytimes.com

Leaving out the Nat'l Enquirer

MARK FISHER
FROM SCIENTOLOGY FILES:
The church says Fisher cannot be believed, describing him as a "virulent anti-Scientologist'' and "an admitted sexual tourist'' who has had sex with prostitutes in Thailand.
The church provided an "Ethics Order'' from June 1990 that said of Fisher: "He has shown that he is a fake and a totally irresponsible one at that. ... He has demonstrated his hands are dirty and that he cannot keep them clean himself. … He is also demoted in rank to swamper as that is what he is.''

WOW SCIENTOLOGY ADMITTING IT VIOLATES Priest Punitive Privilege by using ethics folders to attack someone LOL what are the chances of that. Can't believe him because he has used prostitutes? Know how many wives of of other Scientology members DM has fucked? Lets see, Scientology stalks a critic, slanders him for speaking out 1 of 100's at this point, sounds like human rights abuse by Scientology. Make sure you get Jan and the CCHR right on this. By the way Tommy Davis said ethics folders are confidential.

Remember that Co$ speech intended for "the leaders" of Anonymous?
Fucking hysterical.

“If you are planning for a year, sow rice; if you are planning for a decade, plant trees; if you are planning for a lifetime, educate people”

.

Here is something useful you can do. Save this kid by eating they the shit you are pushing out your ass, yourself.

CCHR FEEDING THE HUNGRY AND SAVING THE WORLDS CHILDREN
AFTER ALL THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN HELP

lulz... you know its a bad day to be a cultie when the lowest PR scum stuck working youtube where his inevitable fail is always marginalized, gets sent into WWP to defend Jan Eastgate, human rights camwhore and enabler of rapists.

speaking of lulz, have you seen the "who and what is anonymous?" playlist description on his YT pg?

...Are we to take marcotai's entrance as the cult's response to these charges?

If this is so; and the best they can muster; they are in big trouble; what a Fail.

.

Cincinnati's Examiner picked up Radaronline's story (already in this thread?)
http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-in-cincinnati/scientology-leader-jailed-on-sex-abuse-charges

Look I'm just here because I was sent here, I know Jan Eastgate will probably go to prison, and I know Scientology is no place for kids or even families, it's a UFO cult run by abusers and rapists, and I should leave because I'm gay but too scared to come out of the closet. Don't hate me. I have AIDS.

-- marcotai

Tommy Davis, is that you?

Yes. And I'm banned from going on TV, running around in circles all day, and DM says I suck cock.

The law on defamation is not as loose as you imagine, even as defenses against it differ country to country. A plaintiff alleging defamation needs to do more than prove damages and that the statement was false. The statement needs to be one that intends to harm the reputation (or was foreseeable that it would harm) of the plaintiff. This has led to a large body of case law (across all common law countries, such as the US and AU) helping define the types of statements which ordinarily damage the reputation of another and are thus defamatory. I've yet to see any statements like those you identify by Eastgate be classified as defamatory. Generally denying allegations made against you by claiming those allegations as false are never defamatory, without significantly more, even if your denial is false and even if in the course of your denial you call your accuser a liar. Show me a case that says otherwise.

I am familiar with this topic and I even posted a link for a respected law site. I am not going to argue with you on a matter that can be commonly found to be true on the internet or a common law reference. I have stated that the cult not only made the allegations but they did so in conjunction with other statements to discredit these two people and these statements and allegations were made in the spirit of intentionally trying to discredit them. So argue with me if you like but the standards are what they are at least as what I know them to be, in the US. But it is not up to you or me if a complaint is filed and excepted by the courts is it?

That you don't realize that the site you posted doesn't support your argument suggests to me that you don't have the vaguest conception as to how defamation law works. Again, find me a single case from a common law country which supports your argument.

Somewhere unpleasant, some poor victimized $cilon bastard is taking furious notes on all the legal data & analysis in here.
Really - 50 Oz bucks says the cult has no better ideas.

As a fledgling paralegal, I appreciate the breakdown.

Jan's new law firm?

Dude there are times I swear you are out of it. The site I posted clearly lays down the expectations. We both know there are cases out there that have been won and lost on trivial issues. I posted a site and I suspect you don't like what it says because it is not what you said. In order for me to prove to a T what I am saying I would need to have a transcript of a case and I am not going to do that for you. I belive the site I posted is clear and yes other sites say the same thing. Not that one site or the other is absolute.

I know Scientology monitors this forum, as well as others, but I'm pretty sure their lawyers don't need or look for my help. In any case I generally don't censor myself based on how Scientology's lawyers or OSA might or might not proceed; neither dictate my actions and I've long disagreed with critics who advise or conduct themselves based on what they think will most upset OSA. But I also don't write posts empathetic to Scientology's point of view by advocating what I think their lawyers should or shouldn't be doing; my rooting interest is probably obvious.

But don't underestimate their lawyers, they're pretty creative. In this instant matter, speculating about the viability of a possible defamation claim against them/Eastgate doesn't alter in the slightest how they/she would proceed if one was actually brought against them/her. The law is what it is and relevant case law, both for an against, would naturally emerge.

Thanks again Scott for your legal commentary. Greatly appreciated.

You don't need a "transcript" of a case, you need a judicial opinion. Lots exist in Google Scholar, especially on defamation. As to the site you posted, it merely laid out general principles of defamation law, nothing more and nothing the least bit objectionable. I could've written it myself. But also nothing supporting your argument, which doesn't account for the requirement that a defamatory statement involve harm to the plaintiff's reputation. The accusation that your accuser is a liar doesn't come close to meeting this requirement.

Looks like someone needs to unplug their USB gavel.

Out of curiosity, would Jan's telling Carmen it was her own fault bear any weight beyond (inadmissible) emotional sway with a jury? Is any emotional injury suffered by Carmen included under the umbrella of "perverting the course of justice"?
Jan's actions were in keeping with horrible $ci practices.

(pls 4give if this was already covered earlier in this thread)

In fact, here, let's go over your posted site, which again, merely lays out general principles of law with regard to defamation:

Later, the site discusses that there must also be damages. While there is nothing pointedly inaccurate about the article, it generalizes too much because defamation law has developed beyond these general principles. Upthread I posted the precise common law definition as recognized in Australia, which is far more relevant than the one you found on FREEADVICE.com (I wish I was kidding). Again, here's the definition of defamation in Australia:

Subsections (b) and (c) hint at what's known as per se defamation, a topic I wrote about in a separate context here. Since neither are obviously present in the instant matter, the Rainers would need to show that Eastgate caused an injury to their reputations by denying their accusations against Eastgate. How do you show a reputational injury? Well, either the statement is so obviously defamatory (e.g., false accusation of a sexual disease; i.e., per se defamation), or you find and present witnesses who, perhaps, declined to hire you based on the alleged defamatory statement, or who had you removed from your school board. Those are reputational injuries.

Xenu Is Lord, I appreciate the research you have done ITT, but a few simplistic online explanations of general legal principles are no substitute for proper legal precedent. Some of the quotations you thought were relevant were not - eg. because they were from the wrong jurisdiction or were relating to civil proceedings, not criminal. On reflection, Scott may well be right about the defamation issue.