The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: refe...@neont.com (Diane Richardson)
Date: 1996/06/09
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
paulet...@aol.com (Paulettec) wrote: The affidavit wasn't released recently. It was located in a database >No, Diane you are wrong on several points. Although the Scientologists >have recently released some alleged affidavit, while I don't remember >signing that specific document, the statements were indeed made by me *in >1984* when a bar association complaint was filed against Michael Flynn, search. I've never seen any Scientologists[tm] either post or mention this affidavit. >which believe me, I was all for. If I did indeed sign that affidavit, Are you claiming that you *didn't* sign such an affidavit? If you did >then I did it more than a decade ago as part of the final settlement and >I'm not supposed to discuss that. not, you certainly have cause to sue the CoS for libel, since at the time of your settlement, they issued it to newspapers across the country by means of the PR Newswire. It's still quite accessible, independent of the "Church," by accessing Nexis. >And I don't know how you can say that Kim had "insufferable pressure" put Was the CoS "constantly plotting to get" you at the time you signed >against her to sign affidavits but that I didn't have that excuse (in >1984). I am not aware that Kim spent most of 15 years as SP#1 with a full >contingent of B1 people constantly plotting to get her, and with daily >dirty tricks against her; nor am I aware that Scientology ever had her >arrested and indicted and that she had to spend 8 months and $28,000 >fighting those charges alone; nor am I aware that she was deposed for 50 >days, that 50 of her friends were deposed, that her elderly parents were >repeatedly harassed, and that she had to defend 19 frivolous lawsuits >against her all over the world on her own money. If I temporarily "broke" >in 1984, what should be surprising was not that I did but that it didn't >happen earlier. that affidavit? It appears that their dirty tricks against you ended *years* before you signed that affidavit. I'm still incredibly curious to find out why you never bothered to >I also found your statement interesting that I turned over the rights to Ron Newman was the source of this information. If it is incorrect, it >"The Scandal of Scientology" twice. That certainly is news to me. If I >did it twice, that means that the second time wasn't valid. Hmmm. :-) is because he misinformed me. He was telling me what you had told him. Perhaps you and he should clear up that misunderstanding. >And I resent your statement that I "most likely shafted a number of other Really? Like Lavenda Van Schaick? David Mayo? >litigants involved in"my lawsuits. I was the only one involved in my >suit, and I believe that my settlement helped those on other suits who >settled later. >And no you will never hear the whole story of the settlement, as you well No, I do *not* well know. You have informed us *in public* that you >know, because I signed an agreement not to discuss it, as you well know. never signed a nondisclosure agreement with the cult. Perhaps you'd like to check out the FAQ you wrote and posted to this newsgroup. >I am not going to get into a public spitting match with you or any other I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what's going on here. There >enemy of Scientology because I think if we're truly concerned about what >Scientology is still doing to its critics, then we should avoid acting >like the Scientologists and DAing and demeaning these critics ourselves. certainly appears to be critics amongst us who do not share the same desire to learn what *really* happened in past events. The "Church" of Scientology[tm] has learned that sugar-coating a >It would be best legally if this is the last I have to say about his whole I have signed no legal agreements with either the "Church" of >issue, and those who truly want me to avoid going back to court with >Scientology will respect this by ending this whole discussion, so I don't >feel I have to defend myself by breaking the secrecy of the settlement >agreement--to defend myself from someone on "our side" no less! Scientology[tm] or you, Ms. Cooper, so don't expect my questions to disappear. I'm just doing what I've always done here -- trying to learn the truth behind the lies. Diane Richardson You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||