Jan Eastgate: Charges Dropped

Discussion in 'Media' started by Anonymous, Apr 23, 2012.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Just a carrot?
  2. anonanchovie Member

    Herro, who the fuck employs Jan Eastgate?

    Did you watch the video?

    Do it if there is even a speck of genuineness left in you.
  3. Herro Member

    If you really want to talk about this (whether or not Chanology is doomed because people aren't angry enough) start another thread and everyone can discus it there. Otherwise we should probably get back to the matter at hand here.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Ersatz Global Moderator

    Rerail by Herro! Thanks!
    • Like Like x 3
  5. anonanchovie Member

    Would you kindly remind me what your issue at hand was? Please.
  6. Herro Member

    Thanks. Your perspective is very useful in this situation. :)

    The dismissal of Eastgate's charges. It's right there in the thread title in case you forget.
  7. Anonymous Member

  8. grebe Member

    anonanchovie, I would listen to you and give you a hug if we were sitting in a pub together over a pint. Solidarity is a good thing. Comforting your allies is a good thing. But these good things are just for us, to please ourselves. I think we want a bit more than that.

    So when we're well rested and no longer overwhelmed with feeling, let's collect relevant dox and see if we can't figure out who is who and what is what . Or let's go have some fun outside. One of two.

    I lose patience with posts that say nothing more than, "Miscavige is bad!" Impotent whining is not winning.
    • Like Like x 5
  9. grebe Member

    I can't really blame them even though I am disappointed. Prosecuting Eastgate would be a resource-draining roller coaster ride full of unpleasant surprises.

    Ideally the prosecutor is unhappy with this situation. Chance favors the unhappy mind.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. TinyDancer Member

    The charges were withdrawn, not dismissed. If the original police were found, and remembered the matter, perhaps...
    • Like Like x 3
  11. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  12. Clamosaurus Member

    Yet another account of how child sexploitation isn't considered serious enough in Oz.
  13. Anonymous Member

    You're somewhat distracted today, eh?
  14. Anonymous Member

    Must be very common.
  15. grebe Member

    Just to recap, I said "so what?" in response to this:
    Exhibit A: Price of a dozen eggs when I remember that Miscavige = Scientology: $3.39.
    Exhibit B: Price of a dozen eggs when I forget that Miscavige = Scientology: $3.39.
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Malory Member

    Well if there's one thing I could say to Carmen, it would be thanks for having the strength to push the matter as far as it got. Eastgate might not stand trial for this crime, but the publicity might just help another kid to avoid the same fate.

    The scum who hurt and manipulate children need to be reminded that kids grow up and some of them will talk.
    • Like Like x 5
  17. anonymous612 Member

    • Like Like x 1
  18. muldrake Member

    That's actually a very good point. However, the rules on retroactivity are more complicated than that. The issue of whether a new law that replaces a law that already criminalized certain conduct is still operative is often tricky. I don't think we need a huge discussion of that issue here, but whether the new law criminalized previously acceptable conduct is usually the determinative factor.

    I suppose it is possible that a prosecutorial error led to a situation where the case was too likely to fail to be a worthy risk. This would, however, be a true case of a technicality. It has always been illegal in every jurisdiction I know to "pervert the course of justice" by interfering with a criminal investigation.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. anonymous612 Member

    If my understanding is correct, and the basic situation is that they fucked up their paperwork and went "Meh, not worth fixing it," then is it or is it not time to bitch the fuck out at the prosecution?
  20. Are you going to behave yourself with it?
  21. LouLou Member

  22. grebe Member

    1. ETHICS by L Ron Hubbard
    5. DEAD SLEEP by ?
    6. THE LAW HANDBOOK by ?

    I tried to track down "Dead Sleep" but could only find the movie version of the likely book which seems loosely based upon events at Chelmsford Hospital. Maybe that's a video tape.

    Anyone have a higher resolution image showing the books and their authors?
  23. Anonymous Member

  24. Anonymous Member

    Sorry #4, and I see you already got there.
  25. Anonymous Member

    See Mediafire ling above.
  26. Anonymous Member

    2. TO SLEEP, TO DIE by Ruth Clarement
    3. DEEP SLEEP by Bromberger and LOLWUT?
    4. SOME DOCTORS MAKE YOU SICK by Stephen Rice
    5. DEAD SLEEP by ??? (audio book?)
    6. THE LAW HANDBOOK - Your Practical Guide to Law in NSW by Redfern Legal Centre

    Who Guarantees the Future of Scientology?
    • Like Like x 2
  27. grebe Member


    If there were a really obvious link --e.g., winning a CCHR award-- it would be career suicide for Fife Yeomans to file a news report on Eastgate. So Imma guess the best evidence we'll see is stuff like this and that craptastic Ritalin thing.

    Fife Yeomans pulled double duty on the Ritalin story: she ran the original bogus stats plus she wrote a news piece echoing an "I'm outraged" reaction to those stats using the mouth of Judge Paul Conlon. She's written other bits on Judge Conlon also. Seems to like him.

    In a well run misinformation campaign, you don't really want anyone pulling double duty.

    For you kids out there: reporting and commentary are different. You can write opinion pieces for the newspaper on your best friends. But you can't write news reports on your pals without bending over backwards to explain why you are doing that.
    • Like Like x 4
  28. Anonymous Member

    That "Dead Sleep" is definitel a video. "Village Roadshow" is that logo at the top of it.
  29. Herro Member

    Best friends?
  30. Anonymous Member

    There's an unrelated book with the same title from 2001, that threw me off.
    And I couldn't find any pictures of book or video that looked much like the OP.

    but this:

  31. Anonymous Member

    She promotes their work, they promote her work.
    Purely platonic.
  32. Herro Member

    It would be more accurate to say that she writes about things they care about. They might promote her work because it serves their interests, but that certainly does not mean that they are "best friends."
  33. Anonymous Member

    Linda Blair
    Nice tits
    Acting? LOL
  34. grebe Member

    That's the "birds of a feather" hypothesis and should be considered the most likely explanation when you see something that looks like a conspiracy.

    Conspiracy hunting is a bit of a time wasting trap. There really isn't a good way to prove a conspiracy unless:

    a) the conspirators let the cat out of the bag
    b) you infiltrate the conspiracy and grab some evidence (RICO investigation)

    I am not looking to prove that Jan Fife Yeomans is part of a CCHR covert operation to handle the Janet Eastgate flap. I'm only looking for sufficient evidence of a connection between Janet and the CCHR to raise a few journalistic and political eyebrows. Enough eyebrows up long enough and maybe someone will do a proper investigation of the people behind this fake journalism*.

    There is something positive I can say about Janet Fife Yeomans: she makes me appreciate journalists like Tony Ortega.

    Btw Herro I didn't mean to claim that the Jans are "best friends." I used that term in a hypothetical to illustrate or represent a social conflict of interest. Maybe I should have stuck with the mutual muff munchers hypothetical I used in the other thread. That's more jokey and exaggerated and therefore more obviously a metaphor or whatever the right word is for that thing you do when you are making some point.

    *fake journalism = my personal opinion of stuff like JFY's work. Hope that's clear.

    Ok now I'm tired. Next time I'm just going to say, "kill yourself." That will be my shorthand way of saying a bunch of stuff like I did in this post.
    • Like Like x 3
  35. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Mystical theory:

    Oz Chanons' heads were getting too full of win big. Solved.
  36. Zhent Member

  37. I was curious if the movie has the psychiatrist kill himself at the end but I couldn't find anything about the ending except something about him having a cat fight with Linda Blair
  38. grebe Member

    There's a trailer here but I can't embed it:

    Trolling around I actually couldn't find any reports of induced coma at Chelmsford Hospital killing anyone. A large number of the deaths linked to the deep sleep procedure were actually suicides, causing me to suspect that the statistic (which I don't have handy) used by Fife Yeomans represented deaths by all causes.

    Induced coma is a recognized medical procedure that is still used, mostly for brain injury and prolonged seizures.

    Edit: Just read some of the articles Zhent posted in the other thread which describe two deaths clearly linked to deep sleep: a substance abuser in his 20s who died of hypoxia and a woman with pulmonary edema at autopsy, both under the care of Dr. Gill, a gerneralist at Chelmsford.

    Those two deaths alone are troubling, regardless of the total. Kind of a footbullet on Scientology's part to use a statistic representing all deaths and imply that it represents those directly due to the procedure (sorry I didn't save the link). Two deaths unquestionably linked to such an uncommon procedure is a knock out blow. No need to tart that up and so bring your own credibility into question.
  39. Anonymous Member

    I only remember the MAD-spoof, it was fairly silly, even for a MAD.
  40. Anonymous Member

    The victim is the one that really lost here.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins