ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



David Mayo, Bill Robertson, Robin Scott -More Truth Revealed and Realities uncovered

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by rockyslammer, Apr 14, 2011.

  1. FoTi

    FoTi Crusader

    Have you checked this out with a Constitutional Attorney?
     
  2. Emma

    Emma Con te partirĂ² Administrator

    David, have you given serious consideration in the past to challenging the gag order?
     
  3. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    IANAL, either but I suspect it is a lot more complicated than that. As I understand it a settlement agreement constitutes a specific type of contractural arrangement.

    There is absolutely nothing to prevent an individual from voluntarily signing away rights in a contract. That's what contracts are for, the voluntary reassignment of rights. The right to freedom of speech is constitutionally guaranteed, but it is NOT an absolute right, and an individual can legally enter a contract wherein he agrees to a partial restriction of his right. Non-disclosure agreements are common examples of such.

    In theory an individual can terminate a contract through non-compliance BUT when he does so he becomes subject to any penalties in the contract which may apply. Worse yet, it reopens the possibility for more litigation over the terms of the contract. :omg:

    Been more than enough of that! :yes:

    Contracts CAN be invalidated when they were not lawfully made in the first instance. An obvious case, a contract which requires committing a criminal action is not legally enforceable. The use of coercion to ensure agreement to a contract is also a valid argument in seeking to invalidate an existing contract. However, whether there is an effective time limit or other restriction for such a claim might be a factor in an attempt to get a contract invalidated.

    An even more complicating instance would be were the parties to an agreement resident in differing legal jurisdictions or across national boundaries, or where changes of residence involving national boundaries and legal jurisdiction appertain.

    In short, in an hypothetical case of a coerced settlement between, say, a former member of a litigious & abusive cult and that abusive institution, a d@mn good contract/settlement lawyer should be consulted FIRST before any thought about any attempt to break such an existing arrangement is entertained. At least such an hypothetical settlement, however unsatisfactory, would provide some continuing legal protection to the former member who may have been a party to it. A premature repudiationwould be an highly risky endeavor. Without proper benefit of counsel, it would be an outright reckless action.

    Such a matter could prove to be a real bit of a mess.


    Mark A. Baker
     
  4. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    That would make a d@mned good protest sign if anybody happened to be conducting some sort of civil protest in support of Freedom of Speech.


    Mark A. Baker :whistling:
     
  5. MostlyLurker

    MostlyLurker Patron Meritorious

    Could you imagine Mike Rinder admitting to a court that there was indeed an unlawful pressure? :coolwink:

    Yes, it will require Mike Rinder to be onest and willing ... :confused2:
     
  6. anonomog

    anonomog Gold Meritorious Patron

    I keep thinking of Little Bear Victor's purely fictional bedtime stories for some reason...
     
  7. MostlyLurker

    MostlyLurker Patron Meritorious

    Yesterday I asked to an ex-LRH personal assistant on Facebook if she could contribute to Glenn Samuels's LRH for Real personal stories.

    She wrote me: "Sorry I am under a court order and I want no problems with the church" :bigcry:

    We paid a Church that pays people to not tell us the truth. Its somewhat embarrassing. :melodramatic:
     
  8. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Hmmm, another good sign: XXX Pays People NOT to Tell the Truth.

    Certainly some good suggestions for Free Speech Advocates popping up tonight!


    Mark A. Baker
     
  9. David Mayo

    David Mayo Patron with Honors

    Provided they arfe legally constituted!!!!

    I don't have such an attorney nor do I know of one. Got any names? (Other than "Monique" :angry::angry::angry:)

    (OTOH, it never ceases to amaze me that something as clearly written as the Constitution of USA needs clarification by anyone.)

    D
     
  10. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    No matter how 'clearly written' a document may be it can always be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some of us are actually warped enough to enjoy that aspect of language MORE than it's more prevalent use for facilitating 'communication'. It's a bit like having a preference for Bach's Fugues rather than Gregorian Plain Song. :coolwink:


    Mark A. Baker
     
  11. paradox

    paradox ab intra silentio vera

    Okay, someone edumacate me. What is the deal with gag orders and resulting agreements written, I assume, under US law and the ability to speak outside US borders i.e. other national laws or even World Court jursidiction? Are such gag orders legally binding worldwide!??

    Of course, since ESMB, for example, has been moved from Aussie servers and is now hosted by servers located within the U.S. (that's correct?) then I assume US law applies as far as ESMB goes?
     
  12. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    It has NOTHING to do with the government. It's all about the contract. Yes, such contracts can be enforced even when the parties are no longer present within the original legal jurisdiction. That complicates matters but does not negate the agreement or its terms.


    Mark A. Baker
     
  13. paradox

    paradox ab intra silentio vera

    I think a certain party should be put in touch with a certain Australian Senator!

    Well, I guess it does depend on where a certain party resides. Still, could be an interesting relationship; pooling of resources and all.
     
  14. paradox

    paradox ab intra silentio vera

    Din't mention government; mentioned law (even contract law if that is the relevant area) and legal jurisdiction(s). :confused2:
     
  15. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    It would be needful to talk to an Australian Barrister and a good u.s. contract/settlement attorney first. A government subpoena MIGHT serve as a legitimate basis for violating an hypothetical gag order, BUT that would certainly depend on some complicated legal issues which none of us (except possibly Challenge(??)) is in a position to begin to address.

    Already the speculations are becoming increasingly convoluted. Although, on the 'plus' side, I doubt they are making the OSA terribly happy.

    [Message to OSA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTiyLuZOs1A ]


    Mark A. Baker
     
  16. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    The simple answer is: legal contracts are, in theory, enforceable. Abrogating a contract can be a messy business.

    There is a reason lots of money is spent in the area of contract law. It's complicated. There are few 'simple answers', particularly in an hypothetical case involving multiple jurisdictions, possible coercion, harassment. misrepresentation, or whatever.

    Unless some top notch legal talent shows up on the thread, there isn't much more to be said here about it.


    Mark A. Baker
     
  17. paradox

    paradox ab intra silentio vera

    Think you probably meant user I.D. Cherished, Mark. Still, don't know what it would hurt to have someone like the Aussie Senator in one's corner, or on one's, um, social contact or luncheon/dinner list, if only for referrals and other whatnot goodies.
     
  18. anonomog

    anonomog Gold Meritorious Patron

    Call me mean spirited but it's giving me the warm fuzzies to think of how it's giving ol' dainty davey the not so warm fuzzies. :D

    Thursday at 2 is rapidly approaching have popcorn ready for the inevitable attempt to twist things.

    Or maybe they decide discretion is the better part of valour....wai-...head cams and squirrel t-shirts.....never mind; ignore that last thought.
     
  19. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Yes, you're right about Cherished.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObbzXqjOlRQ


    So many marvelous ladies on the board, it's hard to keep straight which one does what.

    No worries about David's social calender. He's always been a popular laddie. :)

    If there is one Kiwi who would get a warm welcome in Oz, my money would be riding on David. :yes:


    Mark A. Baker
     
  20. rockyslammer

    rockyslammer Patron

    I hear what you are saying Mark. Let's do some thinking.

    If David was in Australia (for example) and he was required to give evidence at a committee or investigation what would have priority - the committee or the contract?

    If David could prove he was coerced then of course that would make it far easier to negate the contract or if David wasn't given enough "consideration" for the onerous conditions of the contract. If, If if.

    Did you know that the word "if" is the biggest word in the English language?

    regards
    Martin