I recently read a long (earlier) thread here that I feel I must answer because it distorts several events in the past. Now I'll admit that I was no angel, and I made plenty of mistakes in my fight against Scientology.
But even so, I worked longer (15 years), and suffered more (constant harassment throughout, 19 lawsuits, one criminal frame-up and one probable attempted murer) than anyone else --and with the least support since there was no Internet in those days so it was mighty lonely and difficult -- than any other person who has fought Scientology.
I don't mean to belittle the wonderful job many others have done. But I sure as hell don't want to see someone who has no idea what really happened in those days continually try to put a negative spin on everything I did.
I am not going to waste my time arguing in detail the many erroneous statements that appeared in this thread, partially because I have a life, and also because those same statements will simply reappear again later, along with some new accusations--as happened the last time I tried to correct some inaccuracies and innuendoes posted by this person here. But I'm going to respond to a few of the errors rather than let them continue to be repeated without rebuttal.
> although it was reported in the papers that she was paid $50,000
> to sign that affidavit for the Church of Scientology.
Really? Please post a copy of this paper.
> After Cooper turned on Flynn, the best Flynn could do was reach
> a global settlement with the CoS to put an end to all the lawsuits
> and countersuits.
Now this is also a new one, meant to imply that once again, I supposedly hurt others by settling.* But Flynn always desperately WANTED a global settlement; it wasn't, as stated here "the best he could do." It's what he wanted to do -- and made millions doing it. (Which he deserved.)
> Someone asked you-know-who: Why have your pried so deeply into her life?
You- know- who responded: I have never "pried deeply into her life." That is an outright lie. I read public documents -- just as many people are now reading transcripts of ...
Sorry, but I always thought someone flying from Ohio to Boston and spending 5 days there going through boxes of my depositions and legal paper was indeed "prying deeply into my life."
>Cooper has posted 776 *since* she posted her "farewell address."
I couldn't have done that if I posted almost every day and I think my posts have generally been 2-4 weeks apart (Unlike my posts much earlier which were far more frequent.) A friend just did a search for me and told me that I posted 156 messages -- before and after my farewell message.
>You-know-who wrote: Cooper produced that affidavit** for the Church of
>Scientology, betraying the lawyer who spent years of his life attempting to
Mike did a wonderful job for several years at a tremendous personal emotional cost, and he was terrifically dedicated and truly worked hard to fight Scientology. But how much money did his clients (who also spent years fighting Scientology) end up with individually after they settled with him as their lawyer?
Ask Lavinda, (or check her posts and logs) since I believe she commented publicly about this (and she spoke to me privately and bitterly about it as well.) Perhaps the clients also felt that they had been betrayed.
>(Someone asked) Didn't the lawyer, Flynn get a quite nice settlement for himself?
> You-know-who replied: I do not know.
Well, I do. He had all his clients sign a 50% legal agreement, which is permissible in Boston, although 33% is standard throughout most of the country.
In addition to half of what his clients received, he was allowed all expenses over that. This is not saying anything against him, because you can imagine that with Scientology fighting him constantly in court, his expenses were enormous. But how much money do you think this left his clients after years of their fighting Scientology as well?
>You know who wrote: That occurred AFTER she settled her lawsuit with the CoS,
>however, so it wasn't part of her settlement agreement.
How do you know what was or wasn't part of a secret settlement agreement? I won't comment on my case, but in many situations, not just legal ones, because one document is signed a couple of days after another it does not mean it wasn't part of the whole, or that something obtained something afterwards as payment for signing something earlier as you keep implying.
If the Arabs and Israelis were to decide to draw up a peace agreement (yeah, sure) but they couldn't agree on one critical point, they might decide that rather than stalling proceedings when they're moving along well (yeah, sure) they'd hammer out the details of that final sticking point after they sign all other agreements.
This is also common in acrimonious legal settlements everywhere, especially when many lawyers and multiple litigation are involved and everything can't be solved in one day. Which document is signed first may have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.
>You know who said: In 1985, Paulette Cooper did what Minton and Brooks are
>now doing. All three turned against those fighting the CoS.
I resent this distortion also. Not only did I not turn againt those fighting Scientology, but the only way that one could say that what I did and what Minton & Brooks did were similar would be if ALL Minton & Brooks had done was sign an affidavit against Dandar. (I've avoided most of these posts but I have an inkling that they did a lot more than that. I don't want to know.)
>You know who wrote: She continued posting after
>she wrote that. She was never a prolific newsgroup participant,
>but she posted far more messages to this newsgroup *after* than
>*before* her "farewell message."
I think I probably posted far more frequently and closer together before that post (google's not very accurate on these things), and I know that until those events leading to my "farwell message," I read a.r.s. (and enjoyed it!) regularly. Afterwards I decided that the unpleasantness on the newsgroup wasn't worth it and skim it now.
>Dilbert wrote>Just goes to show how horribly misinformed some
>You-know-who responded: >She lied to you, Dilbert. Not only did she continue
>reading and posting, her posting *increased* after this message.
Like all statements this person makes about me, once again, this one is slanted to make me look bad. "She lied to you Dilbert" she wrote. But I don't recall discussing with Dilbert whether I would post again and how often.
And if I did, why should someone write that I lied about it except to try to make me look bad? Perhaps I just changed my mind. (Many people have decided to leave a.r.s. and then returned.) This is an example of the negative spin I've complained about before: using loaded words unjustifiably to make others look bad. That's what Scientologists do, not ojective researchers.
Finally, I have no intention of reading any responses to this post, or countering any rebuttals, because it's all a big waste of time. But as soon as this person presents proof of their statement above (the first one) by posting a newspaper article that says I received $50,000 from Scientology for signing an affidavit, would one of my friends here on a.r.s. please e-mail it to me? <grin>
Paulette Cooper Author, "Scandal of Scientology."
*I also resent this person's repeated statement that I turned against those fighting Scientology. The only "evidence" she ever presented (other than this new bit about suppoisedly effecting the global settlement, which by the way, occurred a couple of years after I settled) was that she posted the following.
A former Scientologist on a.r.s., (David Mayo) supposedly said to her that an affidavit with my name on it may have been used in a court suit and he thinks may have hurt him. But she only posted this statement after Mayo had settled his litigation with Scientology to the tune of $3 million (he doesn't sound very hurt to me) with a silence agreement and had left a.r.s.. So it was very convenient that this claim was made after Mayo was unavailable to comment on it.
But now I will for the first time because it has been used by this person in other threads as well as "proof" that an affidavit with my name on it supposedly hurt someone else. I was surprised to read this when it was first posted because, Mayo and I had engaged in a pleasant e-mail correspondence while he was still on a.r.s. and he never mentioned anything to me about it.
If the situation were reversed, and I thought someone had signed an affidavit that had been used against me in my case, I certainly would have mentioned something to them about it -- if I engaged in e-mailed correspondence with them at all. I probably would have been too angry at them to correspond pleasantly with them as if nothing had ever happened. Unless, of course, nothing had ever happened.
And then afterwards, that it was "prying deeply into my life" when she posted the deposition about me from a psychiatrist I saw when I was 20 years old oId. Such activites make me question this woman's motives although she claimed in another post on that thread that she went searching for information about me because she wanted to know why I would sign an affidavait or whatever.
I believe the real motivation was the same as when his person repeatedly posted statements about one of her enemies alleged penis size: to try to make her enemy look bad and embarrass them.
**The affidavit is public record so I will admit to its existence but can't discuss it or anything pertaining to my settlement for legal reasons.