|
 |
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
Date: 2000/05/07
Subject: Re: Diane Richardson's History with attacking people on ARS (was Monica Lies Again (was: See, Monica, Other
On 6 May 2000 22:58:43 -0700, Elizabeth Ann Cox --
The only thing it reminds anyone of is the mass of errors and outright fabrications some people here are capable of, Bunnyann. There is next to no truth related in this piece of fiction Shelly Thomson manufactured and Arnie posted (and you've managed to repost *twice* to the same thread!). >It is amazing that There is nothing at all "questionable" about me, Bunnyann. There >someone like Paulette is so vehemently attacked by such questionable >individuals. are, however, a number of outright lies perpetrated here by the Queen of Black Helicopters, Shelly Thomson. >And some people wonder why they are accused of being on the Who might those people be, Bunnyann? Or are you so timid you >cult's payroll. only suggest things you might wish were true, but have absolutely no factual basis. >Elizabeth Ann Cox I'm not quite sure what Shelly Thomson is referring to here, when she >aka, Bunnyann >In article <8f2ech$2...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Arnie says... >>In article <3914b3b1.51077...@enews.newsguy.com>, refe...@bway.net says... >> [drivel snipped] >> from http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/biased/biased.2.21.ht... >> III Vendetta speak of "Paulette Cooper's troubles." >>On July 26, 1995, her birthday, Paulette Cooper came out of retirement with a This is an outright lie. Shelly Thomson fabricated this "fact," which >>post to alt.religion.scientology. >>Soon after the post Cooper received email from Keith Spurgeon, a long-time is not true. Keith and I did not, in fact, meet until long after he made the acquaintance of Paulette Cooper. Why let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy yarn, however? >>Spurgeon and Cooper became friends; as Cooper Cooper may have "perceived it" that way, but that certainly wasn't how >>perceived it, they were close friends. Keith saw it. Perhaps Cooper has lower standards for determining "closeness" and "friendship" than others do. >>Cooper had a pent-up need to talk about This is, indeed, true. Keith is a very good listener, and Paulette is >>her experiences with scientology and Spurgeon was a very good listener. *quite* a talker. >>Cooper Paulette Cooper NEVER mentioned the Bast tapes to Keith. Again, >>told Spurgeon about her traumatic experiences of the 1980's and her devastating >>betrayal at the hands of Richard Bast. More than anything, she dreaded having >>the Bast tapes become public. though, why let the truth interfere with a good conspiracy yarn? >>By late January or early February Paulette had signed onto an AOL scientology Actually, Judith was not an "associate" of Keith's; again, Shelly >>chat and had a tiff with Judith Bradford, an associate of Spurgeon's; Thomson fabricates "facts" to fit what she'd like people to think. Although they lived in the same city, Keith met Judith online through me, and only *after* Paulette Cooper arranged to have her weekly chats there. As to the "tiff," it was a great deal more than that. Paulette Cooper At that point, I stopped replying to correspondence sent to me by >>Paulette That's an outright lie. Cooper *never* apologized to Judith Bradford. >>remembers apologizing to Bradford in email on February 17, 1996. >>Bradford Judith did no such thing. Another fabrication by Shelly Thomson. >>refused to accept the apology and continued to lambaste Cooper. >>Meanwhile, Spurgeon obtained a copy of the Hubbard affidavit. There is no such thing as the "Hubbard affidavit." I'm not sure how Shelly got so confused about this very important item. Keith and I had begun compiling a database of all newspaper While downloading and sorting the articles, Keith noted a strange Because neither of us could understand why Paulette Cooper would Rather than address the question, Paulette Cooper began a I certainly had no intention of "destroying" Cooper. In fact, >>He discussed it The statements made by Cooper in this affidavit, I later learned, >>with other people without saying anything to Paulette. >>The affidavit states in part: >>"In pursuit of this strategy of winning by seeking default judgments, my >>Sworn to before me this 4th day of March, 1985. directly contradicted earlier statements she made under oath in deposition >>The affidavit was soon posted to alt.religion.scientology and Cooper was I actually checked with others to find out if Cooper's sworn statement >>bitterly attacked. Diane Richardson accused Cooper of "selling out" for money >>and damaging other litigants' cases against the church. had been used against them in their Scientology litigation, and received assurances that it had indeed been used against them, adversely affecting their cases. >>Cooper was shocked. ("I Cooper is correct on one point; we had never argued. Once again, >>never had an argument with Diane on chat," she said. "I thought we were >>friends.") however, it appears Cooper's standards for whom she considers a "friend" is considerably lower than those held by others. I never considered Cooper a friend; she was merely another online acquaintance. >>Cooper, who had signed a settlement agreement which included a gag order, could Cooper stated more than once that she did NOT sign a gag order; in >>say nothing in her own defense. fact, if she had done so she would not have been able to post to a.r.s. without violating such an order. According to Cooper (at that time, at least) she was not permitted to >>An examination of the dates shows that the I'm assuming Shelly Thomson is utilizing the "royal we" here, as I >>Hubbard affidavit was signed only four days after the settlement agreement. >>We believe that signing the affidavit was part of the settlement. know of no one else who held such a belief at the time. >>There is no Perhaps Shelly Thomson has seen no such evidence; I, however, have. >>evidence that the affidavit harmed any other critics' cases. >>Cooper cannot say whether she received any money in the settlement. [After No one (except, perhaps, sthomson), has asked Cooper to reveal the >>looking at the record, our private view is that whatever she received, it >>probably wasn't enough.] terms of her settlement with the CoS. This is nothing but a strawman. >>Richardson, Spurgeon et al. argued that taking money Once again, this is an outright lie by Shelly Thomson, which is not >>from the church is a vile crime. supported by any facts. >>We imagine that the church feels that way too. Again, it appears Shelly Thomson is indulging her pretensions by using the "royal we." I have no idea *what* the "church" feels about this; apparently sthomson has better inside sources than others. >>Early in their acquaintance Cooper remembers telling Spurgeon how much she Keith does not recollect Paulette Cooper making any statement to him >>cherishes her unusually happy marriage. about the happiness of her marriage. He does state, however, that Cooper and her husband appeared to be quite happy together, and that her husband is "a nice guy." >>When we asked how the subject came up, If she did "volunteer" such information, Keith does not remember >>Cooper said she might have volunteered the information. hearing it. >>She indignantly As well she should, since Keith had no interest in Cooper's >>dismissed the idea that Spurgeon may have been fishing for information about her >>vulnerabilities from the very beginning. "vulnerabilities." This entire paragraph is a complete paranoid fabrication hatched in the mind of Shelly Thomson. >>She stated that she could not have been Paulette is right; Keith is a very nice man. :-) >>opped. She would have known. And besides, he was such a nice man. >>Cooper's worst fears came true. Spurgeon posted item after item from the 1980's. Keith posted materials collected in our search of the Lexis-Nexis databases. They dealt with a number of CoS-related topics; not all of them (by any means) pertained to Cooper or her litigation. >>Richardson and Bradford launched vitriolic personal attacks. Again, a complete misrepresentation of the facts by Shelly Thomson. >>Cooper and her Another misrepresentation. Cooper demanded I provide her with >>friends pleaded for copies of the documents but were rebuffed. copies of the court documents I had obtained from publicly available file of her litigation against the CoS. I agreed to do so, but only if Cooper was willing to pay the charges associated with making copies of literally hundreds of pages of documents. Cooper demanded copies be made for her free of charge. I suggested Cooper could obtain copies of the documents >>After torturing I tortured no one. Shelly Thomson engaged in a style of journalism >>Cooper for several months and baiting public interest with innuendo, Richardson >>posted the Bast transcripts. she called "Biased Journalism." At least she was honest about her non-objective "reporting," if one could call it that. Additionally, I by NO means posted transcripts of all the Bast tapes. >>The flamewar took the regulars aback. The posted information showed Paulette The posted information showed that not only had Paulette Cooper >>Cooper to be the victim of a cruel deception: why should this be touted as >>evidence that _Cooper_ was the liar? lied under oath on several occasions, she actually *bragged* about her ability to lie. >>And if some fifteen years ago Cooper did Paulette Cooper also ended her friendship with Nan McLean when >>not pay for all her photocopies, so what? Nan McLean refused to lie under oath to support Paulette Cooper's perjured statements. Nan McLean's deposition specifies quite precisely just how willing Cooper was to lie, and how she demanded others perjure themselves to support those lies. The deposition also shows what a principled and honest person Nan is -- a genuinely remarkable person. >>We could think of much worse behavior, I don't think Shelly Thomson's lies and fabrications which she posted >>some of which we had just seen on the newsgroup. under the title of "Biased Journalism" reach the same level of dishonesty as Cooper's perjured testimony. >>Secondarily, we began to wonder about the sequence of things. The common I repeat, Cooper never mentioned the name Bast to Keith. Never. >>assumption is that Cooper told Spurgeon about the Bast tapes Not once. >>and Spurgeon told Keith and I traveled to the Federal Records Center together. I fail >>Richardson, who made a trip to Boston and obtained the court records. to see why anyone could consider going to the primary documents to obtain accurate information a crime. I still believe it was the appropriate action to take. >>[Richardson taunted Coooper with this claim in private email.] I stopped all correspondence with Paulette Cooper the previous year, after Cooper's display of rudeness to Judith Bradford on AOL. >>Nevertheless, the material posted represents a sizable investment of time and What Shelly Thomson fails to realize is that we by no means copied all >>money. The court records occupy five file boxes. the documents contained in the court record. Many of them were pro forma filings and the like, devoid of any substantive information. Others were documents which were filed repeatedly as attachments. >>At $.50 per page, this >represents a substantial sum. Again, Shelly Thomson assumes that we had photocopies made of all the documents. This is incorrect. We took along a portable scanner and scanned the lengthy deposition transcripts and similar documents ourselves, without cost. >>Copies of the tapes are available, but expensive. We took our own recording equipment and made our own copies free of charge. >>The time required to obtain these things from the court clerk must also be I'm not sure why Shelly Thomson thinks anyone should waste any time >>considered. mulling over this at all. We obtained copies of all the materials we wished in a 3-day visit. >>Did Spurgeon and Richardson really obtain all their documents from the court? That is exactly where we obtained those documents. Cooper is well aware of this fact, since she spoke by telephone to Records Center personnel about it. >>Where are the receipts? I wasn't aware that we were required to provide receipts of our expenses to Shelly Thomson. >>How many hours did they spend in the courtroom? We spent no time at all in any courtroom. Shelly Thomson obviously isn't knowledgeable about the disposition of federal court records. Perhaps her story might have been more helpful if she'd spent more time checking facts and less time in flights of fancy. >>How many We spent a total of three days at the National Archives Federal >>days, and on which days? Records Center in Waltham, Massachusetts, with time to take in the local sights and scenery (and a great seafood restaurant, too). >>When were the tape copies made, and where is the The copies were made by us, at the National Archives >>evidence that they were made by the court? Federal Records Center, in the presence of the Center's director. >>We would like to see this cleared up Another of Shelly's flights of fancy. Keith and I have been very >>because there was, after all, another possible source for those documents. upfront and direct about how we obtained these documents. I have provided all necessary information above. It was later made known to us that Cooper called the Records Center after our visit, so she is also quite aware of the source of these documents. >>Supposing that Richardson and Spurgeon can prove that they acquired their tapes We went to the trouble because we wanted to know what really happened >>and documents from the court, we must then ask why they went to the trouble. in the lawsuit Cooper filed against the CoS. Once again, I fail to understand why going to the source of information might be considered a bad thing. No researcher around would consider any other option than going to the primary sources. That's what we did. >>There are few items of current interest in the posted documents. Actually, there are a *number* of very relevant matters brought to light in these documents. They were all discussed at the time they were posted. >>There are no No one suggested otherwise. >>great crimes or acts of deception (except by the church). >>Paulette Cooper is Shelly Thomson jumps to the false conclusion that we targeted anyone. >>revealed as a victim on a scale most people can scarcely imagine. Why did >>Richardson and Spurgeon pick Cooper as a target? We asked a question in complete innocence and were puzzled by the vehement reaction it engendered from Cooper. We were curious to find out why such an innocuous question would have such an impact, so we determined to find out for ourselves. >>Taking another look at the timeline: I'm still at a loss to understand what Shelly Thomson means by >>Cooper's troubles started right after her ars post. "Cooper's troubles." This is not explained and is utterly nonsensical. >>No sparrow falls on usenet I'm not sure I understand what OSA would have to respond to. Cooper >>without coming to the attention of OSA, the church's intelligence arm, but the >>church did nothing to respond. loudly announced she no longer had any interest in the CoS and had no intention of discussing it. Her posts dealt mostly with her current life, travels, and the books she'd written. >>Instead Cooper was contacted by Spurgeon. Cooper was contacted by *many* a.r.s. participants at that time. One of them, along with many others, was Keith. >>She Once again, I note this is a COMPLETE fabrication. Neither Keith nor >>told him all about her life and her deepest fears--particularly, that the >>humiliating and painful Bast episode would be dragged out on the net. I heard the name Bast until we came across the tapes in the court files. >>Spurgeon He did no such thing. Keith and I were working on a project, which >>secretly fed the information to Richardson, a number of people knew about at the time. I was posting documents obtained from our Lexis-Nexis searches to the newsgroup regularly. >>who used it to stage a public This is entirely untrue. Judith did not "pick a fight" with Cooper, >>attack. They were joined by Judith Bradford, who picked a fight with Cooper >>after Spurgeon had made contact. and Judith did not even know Keith at the time of the AOL incident. >>The trio launched a campaign against Cooper, The only "accusations unsupported by fact" are the lies and >>making plentiful use of innuendo and accusations unsuppored by fact. fabrications made in this "Biased Journalism" by Shelly Thomson. >>--In other words, critic Cooper surfaced on the net, immediately ran into a This is a complete fabrication on the part of Shelly Thomson. There's >>covert op of the type the church is famous for, and became the target of a >>no-holds-barred character assassination. not an iota of truth in it. >>This was not a surprise to anyone who That's because Cooper was NOT set up twice. The only op perpetrated >>has followed the netwar. (It was a devastating shock to Paulette Cooper, who >>still does not believe that she could have been set up twice.) against Cooper is the only manufactured in the warped brain of Shelly Thomson. >>Neverthelesss, we would like to leave room for the possibility that this episode Efforts were started by Dean Benjamin to negotiate a truce. Because >>was merely a coincidence. >>We feel that this would be a good time for Spurgeon, Richardson and Bradford to of Paulette Cooper's refusal to negotiate in good faith, Dean finally gave up his efforts in disgust and frustration. >>to apologize for their accusations, which went far I have nothing to apologize for. The accusations were based on >>beyond any basis in fact; documents in the public record. Anyone who cares to check the factual basis of my statements can easily check the court record for themselves -- they are open to all. >>and to provide objective evidence that they obtained Cooper herself called the Records Center and talked with staff >>all of their documents and tapes in the way they said they did. there. She herself can provide corroboration that we did indeed obtain the documents from the National Archives Federal Records Center. >>Coincidence or OSA? We are waiting to see. Neither coincidence or OSA; rather, a wild fiction hatched in the warped brain of a rather disturbed individual. 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.
| |||||||||||||