Re: Earle Cooley + BU == fair game - NOT

In <125434Z21071995@anon.penet.fi> an230931@anon.penet.fi (Xenu Marcabian II) writes: >
>
>The issue of whether to make an issue of Earle Cooley's post at Boston
>University has been raised in a number of posts.
>
>Some say that making an issue of this is resorting to the same
>tactics which the Cof$ itself has been using. This is a fallacious
>argument. The Cof$ uses disinformation. Have you ever heard a
>$cientology representative tell you the truth or the entire truth?
>
>There is nothing wrong with using information to combat the Cof$.
>There is nothing wrong with educating the Boston University community
>about Earle Cooley's work for the Cof$. Its not as if we are outing
>him for being a drug user or homosexual. Cooley outed himself by
>publicly representing the Cof$. The Boston University community has
>the right to know this information.
>
>Education is how we will win this battle. The more the debate spills
>off of ars and usenet and into the non-cyberspace world the better our
>chances of ultimately prevailing.
>
However, in this case, we'd be on the wrong side. They have the right, just the same as the rest of us do, to competent legal representation. They obviously arent getting it from hkk. Or for that matter their attorneys in Canada, from the looks of the recent Big Win[tm]. Now, I dont happen to have much respect for Earl Cooley's choice of clients. I also think his presentation in court left something to be desired. But I think that was probably as much the fault of a confused and contradictory legal strategy set by the lead attorney.

If and when Earle Cooley engages in unethical conduct on behalf of his client, go for him. Given their track record, there will come that point when his options are to withdraw from a case or engage in such conduct. However, by attacking now we are both a) assuming what his choice will be when that time comes, and b) lessening our ability to effectively criticize when that time comes, if he does make the wrong choice.

Put yourself in the shows of a BU regent. In 1996, we develop evidence that Earle Cooley subbourned perjury. However, we attacked him without substantive merit in 1995. BU does its investigation in 1995, determine legitimately that the attacks are without merit because he's done nothing other than represent a client we don't like (and yes, the client is as unethical as they come, but that doesnt mean this particular attorney is unethical). Now 1996 rolls around. We have a real case. What does the BU regent, or any other investigator, say when the topic comes up? "Oh. We investigated their complaints in 1995. They just hate his client. We're not going to waste our time investigating every time they complain about Earle's clients". See what I mean?

HKK, on the other hand ...

-- ********************************************************* *charles oriez, sp4 coriez@ix.netcom.com* *By putting the character stream OTVII somewhere in your* *posts, you can help overload the cancel bunny's grep * *********************************************************