Flagdown 2014: media coverage, etc

[Lexing Jenkins]

Without WBM, Tori, Bob and the other people that were associated with LMT... would an event like this have come into being? Doubtful.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

I don't find it reasonable, nor your explanation of it. By that logic, if 500 people attend his upcoming documentary screening, with Mark attending, they could all be arrested for protesting or doing other things later? Because they acted in Concert, or Participated? Is that it?

Two responses.

First, critics of my analysis keep up coming up with easily distinguishable "what if" scenarios. Simply attending a documentary screening is not the same as an attending a multi-day anti-Scientology conference and perhaps having witnessed lengthy discussions with a person covered by the injunction.

The obvious problem is that while "acting in concert" language is a standard language in injunctions, there are no clear lines. Probably unlike the scenario where one merely attends a screening of Bunker's video, there is a real concern that someone who was witnessed talking with Bunker at an "anti-Scientology" conference and later picketed in a way prohibited by the injunction could be hauled into Court and asked:

"You talked to Mark Bunker, correct?"

"How many conversations did you have with him?"

"Over how many days?"

"How long was the first conversation? The second? The third?" Etc.

"What did you say?"

"What did he say?"

"What did he say about Scientology?"

"What did you say about Scientology?"

"Did you discuss picketing?" "No? Are you sure you didn't discuss picketing?"

"Your Honor, plaintiff Church of Scientology would like to call Private Investigator Joe Blow as a rebuttal witness. Our offer of proof is that Private Investigator Joe Blow will testify that while under cover he overheard Defendant and Mark Bunker discuss picketing strategies and the best way to bull-bait (provoke) Scientologists."

Secondly, and most importantly, it really wasn't and isn't your call. It really is not for you to dictate what risks others incur. It really is not for you to dictate how the organizers of the anti-Scientology event, who know their attendees are going to protest later in the week, handle and minimize the possible risks to their attendees. They were responsible, not you. It is easy for you to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking because you did nothing, risked nothing, and were responsible for nothing.

With regard to Mark Bunker, Laura did what she felt was necessary to protect her attendees, who she knew were going to protest the COS in Clearwater, from being exposed to legal risk. Perhaps you think she was over-protective. Easy for you to say because you had and have no skin in the game. I'd rather she be over-protective with regard to the possible legal exposure of her attendees than be under-protective and have them hauled into Court and questioned as above.

 

[Lermanet_com]

that lmt injunction was intentionally made confusing and complicated, so it could be used to generate color of law legal fees...

certain zones could not be used to picket in...hang out it... walk back and forth in...

But as I recall the wording of it, any man or woman or even a suppressive person or an evil psychiatrist, or even Admiral Farragut or Bozo the clown, named on the injunction or not, was free to walk the length of any street in Clearwater.... with picket sign or without...
and Bob Minton had to stay 25? feet away from any $cientologist.

A long pole was fashioned with a picker upper hand at the end, so Bob could carry around a copy of the injunction to give to any clams he encountered from 25 feet away.... they called it the FREEP, and it had a bicycle horn on it. (Honk, honk).... The clams were not amused.

Tom Padgett told me a a great analogy about encounters with osa ops... Let's say you were walking home one day, a ufo lands, and little green men come out, you socialize, maybe go dancing... and then they zoom off... you continue your walk home, then you try to explain to someone what happened to you... good luck with that... this is what it is like explaining some of the weird things one encounters when $cientology is trying to encourage a person to be silent.





"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC [$cientology] in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics." USDJ Leonie Brinkema

"Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to
lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their
ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago. These spirits attach
themselves by "clusters" to individuals in the contemporary world,
causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of
their hosts" USDJ Leonie Brinkema

Secrets are the mortar
binding lies as bricks together
into prisons for the mind.

arnie lerma
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than to live fearing to speake

The Internet is the Liberty Tree

"If David Miscavige can attend a deposition dressed like Admiral Farragut then Keith Henson should attend dresses as Bozo the Clown." Grady Ward < silenced by $cientology

 

[failboat]

Are you attending Flagdown? Do you protest in Clearwater?

No and no. I'm just whiteknighting for AMA because she deserves at least one or two here. It's unfortunate, because I'm not as well-informed as some Anons are on all of the history of the Clearwater cell, the LMT injunction and other issues involved here.

I've donated funds to Flag Down and helped raise money for WBM's Knowledge Report documentary, in addition to attending at least a couple protests where he was present. I was masked for those protests.

 

[Anonycat]

Two responses.

First, critics of my analysis keep up coming up with easily distinguishable "what if" scenarios. Simply attending a documentary screening is not the same as an attending a multi-day anti-Scientology conference and perhaps having witnessed lengthy discussions with a person covered by the injunction.

The obvious problem is that while "acting in concert" language is a standard language in injunctions, there are no clear lines. Probably unlike the scenario where one merely attends a screening of Bunker's video, there is a real concern that someone who was witnessed talking with Bunker at an "anti-Scientology" conference and later picketed in a way prohibited by the injunction could be hauled into Court and asked:

"You talked to Mark Bunker, correct?"

"How many conversations did you have with him?"

"Over how many days?"

"How long was the first conversation? The second? The third?" Etc.

"What did you say?"

"What did he say?"

"What did he say about Scientology?"

"What did you say about Scientology?"

"Did you discuss picketing?" "No? Are you sure you didn't discuss picketing?"

"Your Honor, plaintiff Church of Scientology would like to call Private Investigator Joe Blow as a rebuttal witness. Our offer of proof is that Private Investigator Joe Blow will testify that while under cover he overheard Defendant and Mark Bunker discuss picketing strategies and the best way to bull-bait (provoke) Scientologists."

Secondly, and most importantly, it really wasn't and isn't your call. It really is not for you to dictate what risks others incur. It really is not for you to dictate how the organizers of the anti-Scientology event, who know their attendees are going to protest later in the week, handle and minimize the possible risks to their attendees. They were responsible, not you. It is easy for you to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking because you did nothing, risked nothing, and were responsible for nothing.

With regard to Mark Bunker, Laura did what she felt was necessary to protect her attendees, who she knew were going to protest the COS in Clearwater, from being exposed to legal risk. Perhaps you think she was over-protective. Easy for you to say because you had and have no skin in the game. I'd rather she be over-protective with regard to the possible legal exposure of her attendees than be under-protective and have them hauled into Court and questioned as above.

If so, then why go through all the trouble to make it built-in problematic? It's all avoidable. Maybe that's the question. Why create a problem event. That also conforms with your hatred of specific people. I hadn't given that due consideration.

 

[Anonycat]

that lmt injunction was intentionally made confusing and complicated, so it could be used to generate color of law legal fees...

certain zones could not be used to picket in...hang out it... walk back and forth in...

But as I recall the wording of it, any man or woman or even a suppressive person or an evil psychiatrist, or even Admiral Farragut or Bozo the clown, named on the injunction or not, was free to walk the length of any street in Clearwater.... with picket sign or without...
and Bob Minton had to stay 25? feet away from any $cientologist.

A long pole was fashioned with a picker upper hand at the end, so Bob could carry around a copy of the injunction to give to any clams he encountered from 25 feet away.... they called it the FREEP, and it had a bicycle horn on it. (Honk, honk).... The clams were not amused.

Tom Padgett told me a a great analogy about encounters with osa ops... Let's say you were walking home one day, a ufo lands, and little green men come out, you socialize, maybe go dancing... and then they zoom off... you continue your walk home, then you try to explain to someone what happened to you... good luck with that... this is what it is like explaining some of the weird things one encounters when $cientology is trying to encourage a person to be silent.



"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC [$cientology] in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics." USDJ Leonie Brinkema

"Scientologists believe that most human problems can be traced to
lingering spirits of an extraterrestrial people massacred by their
ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago. These spirits attach
themselves by "clusters" to individuals in the contemporary world,
causing spiritual harm and negatively influencing the lives of
their hosts" USDJ Leonie Brinkema

Secrets are the mortar
binding lies as bricks together
into prisons for the mind.

arnie lerma
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than to live fearing to speake

The Internet is the Liberty Tree

To the bolded: the injunction specifies that those naughty zones may be walked through to get from point A to B, but the signs must be carried upside-down and facing away and held at waist level or below ... or something like that.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Somehow this debate has been selectively turned into a discussion of the validity of throwing Mark Bunker out based on the injunction. If that were the only issue then obviously there wouldn't be this much butt hurt.

The big issue is the way people were insulted who could potentially have been interested in attending. It's one thing to say all would be welcome but another to call people names such as Karen ("de la carrion") Mike Rinder ("Rinderburn"), and Tony ("Blowtega"). Please, how is this welcoming not just to the people named, but to people who consider themselves friends of those insulted? There's way more too but you get the picture.

FWIW, I really haven't tried to selectively turn the discussion into the validity of excluding Mark Bunker. I started addressing that issue because I believed the IMHO valid reasons for doing so had neither been been expressed nor understood here.

FWIW, I object to the characterization and name calling of Karen and Mike Rinder on WWP. (I really haven't seen much about Tony there, though I don't doubt you.) I've defended both Karen and Mike (and indeed Marty) on WWP. I've cross-posed a bunch of Indie stuff to WWP. Indeed, all of the Indie stuff I cross-post here I cross-post to WWP. I've defended Indies on WWP.

If people want to discuss the invalidation, disrespect, etc. of Indies on WWP, I'm not only fine with that, I'd probably join in the discussion. I certainly wouldn't try to divert it or derail it.

 

[Lermanet_com]

To the bolded: the injunction specifies that those naughty zones may be walked through to get from point A to B, but the signs must be carried upside-down and facing away and held at waist level or below ... or something like that.

hmm... perhaps like in Orwell's Animal Farm... where the creed went from "all animals are equal" to "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" the LMT injunction was modified..., its been a decade since I saw one. I recall thinking this is confusing as hell...

I suppose then you could make ALL your signs upside down...then not worry about where you walked or the injunction.
That would also direct media interest to Mr Bunker's heroic effort to dismiss it, sort of making him your sergeant York.

It would still IMPLY to each $cientologist that saw you that

"THERE ARE
NO OTS IN
$CIENTOLOGY,
just a dwarf."

 

[AnonyMary]

Are you planning on protesting in Clearwater again? How soon? How often?

I believe Purple Rain lives overseas; that her protesting there was during a visit to the USA

 

[CommunicatorIC]

If so, then why go through all the trouble to make it built-in problematic? It's all avoidable. Maybe that's the question. Why create a problem event. That also conforms with your hatred of specific people. I hadn't given that due consideration.

I"m honestly not sure what you are saying here. I'm not saying that to bull-bait or be difficult. I honestly don't understand.

What I think you are saying, or at least assuming (and if you are so assuming, I agree with you), is that what made the event "problematic" were the decisions to hold it in, or near, Clearwater, and most importantly to hold a concluding protest in Clearwater. It was those decisions that raised the injunction issues.

My understanding is that the reasons to hold the event in or near Clearwater, and to hold a concluding protest in Clearwater, were to confront, protest and enturbulate the COS on its home turf. To take back turf. To let the COS know that they, the attendees, were not afraid of it, etc.

As a practical matter, whether people like it or not, Laura lives in Clearwater, protests in Clearwater, and did a LOT of work on this. FWIW, my perception is that this event would not have taken place without her. I doubt that she would have wanted to travel back and forth to Los Angeles to put on the event there. I also haven't heard of anyone else putting on an event in, say, Los Angeles.

 

[Anonycat]

I"mg honestly not sure what you are saying here. I'm not saying that to bull-bait or be difficult. I honestly don't understand.

What I think you are saying, or at least assuming (and if you are so assuming, I agree with you), is that what made the event "problematic" were the decisions to hold it in, or near, Clearwater, and most importantly to hold a concluding protest in Clearwater. It was those decisions that raised the injunction issues.

My understanding is that the reasons to hold the event in or near Clearwater, and to hold a concluding protest in Clearwater, were to confront, protest and enturbulate the COS on its home turf. To take back turf. To let the COS know that they, the attendees, were not afraid of it, etc.

As a practical matter, whether people like it or not, Laura lives in Clearwater, protests in Clearwater, and did a LOT of work on this. FWIW, my perception is that this event would not have taken place without her. I doubt that she would have wanted to travel back and forth to Los Angeles to put on the event there. I also haven't heard of anyone else putting on an event in, say, Los Angeles.

Yes, that's what I meant.

And, yes, people did a kick ass event in Los Angeles. And if you, I, and some others in the talent pool were going to make an event, I'd say L.A. again.

Were you there? It was epic, and is legendary.

 

[Karen#1]

Just for the record Mike Rinder and myself were invited to this event as speakers. Numerous times. We declined.

Who knows ?

Perhaps the Clearwater PD would have been called on us !​

 

[Smurf]

It's obvious that Tom and Mark knew they were not wanted at the event long before the event began. It's clear from the below statements that it was discussed. The reasons being the injunction potential for endangering others and a clear picture of the concerns and communications between Laura and Tom months before the event. It's also clear to me that Mark knew Laura didn't 'like' him' and that he states he was not planning to go up until the last minute... How was it that with months gone by that Mark didn't know of and when Tom and Laura had their argument about Tom and Mark not being allowed to attend the event?

The bottom line for me is that Tom and Mark went anyway knowing she was on record as stating she did not want them to attend the event. This may not sit well with people because most people like Mark Bunker and thing it was a given that he should be there, injunction related or not. It does not matter why she did not want them there, although it's clear that she believed that Mark's association with the event would pull all attendees into the injunction.

This is a load of crap, Mary, no matter how much you choose to spin it. Mark & Tom's banishment had zero to do with the injunction. Given the cult's elusive ability to lie & misinterpret the letter of the law, the cult, if it wanted to, could get claim those that were allowed in.. Arnie Lerma, Michael Tilse & few others of being an "associate" of Mark Bunker because they are his Facebook friends.

Go right ahead giving Laura Flynn an excuse to lie & manufacture reasons why she banned Mark. It only makes you looked stupid. Laura Flynn is a legend in her own mind who claimed the Flag Down event as her personal project. She forgets that numerous donations financed this project.

Even now, Laura continues to gloat to her adoring fan club on WWP about her role in the event.

 

[Smurf]

The LMT injunction was addressed we...dividuals had zero to do with the injunction.

 

[Smurf]

I think this is why Mark (or was it Tom?) met with the police in advance to assure their would be no problem with being in the audience at the media event.

Darth Xander, a Chicago attorney, who often protests at FLAG, who encouraged Tom Smith to attend Flag Down. Laura Flynn disagreed. Darth is a seasoned attorney who knows the legal ramifications of an injunction & how it can be used & not used (by the cult).

Laura Flynn has no legal experience, period. For her, she banned Mark & Tom for purely personal reasons.

 

[JustSheila]

In hindsight, Laura should have had legal or other advice and much more communication (and agreements) made with attendees or non-attendees. It does not sound like she had that sort of assistance available, though. As for Mark Bunker, he should have clarified all of this with Laura in advance. Hindsight is always 20/20. Laura is not an attorney, she is not perfect, she is human and so is Mark. They made mistakes. As a human, Laura is subject to physical illness and stated she was sick at the time this occurred. She is subject to emotions, too, and apparently has some history with Mark. She may have had poor judgement, not handled things in the best way. Okay. Nobody was hurt, it's all done and dusted.

Can we let it go and take it down to the simplicity of making the most of hers and others efforts to expose the cult?

Can we please not waste the speakers' or others' time and efforts and support them all we can now? They are speaking out against the cult, right there at the cult's hub. A brave and honourable action. Even if the details were a bit messy, Flagdown came together and Flagdown is ON, so let's move forward, shall we?

 

[Smurf]

[NOTE: For those who read my analysis above, please forgive me for repeating it here. I think it is necessary to do so because it appears some people missed it. I'm assuming some people missed it because they have not addressed it on the merits.]

Roger, with respect, you argument and analysis misses the point. That was and is not Laura's concern with regard to the injunction and Mark Bunker's attendance at the conference. Laura's was not concerned that the injunction would somehow be violated by Mark Bunker attendance at the conference. Laura was instead concerned about what effect Mark Bunker's attendance at the conference might have on the ability of other conference attendees to later picket the COS in Clearwater in injunction covered areas (i.e., in zones designated by the injunction) and injunction covered ways (e.g., within 10 feet of a Scientologist) without being subjected to legal harassment by the COS..

Oh, please. Are you an attorney or have any legal experience at all? This is pure BS. Scientology is well-known for manufacturing evidence & claiming their injunctions involves all critics.

I am not an attorney, but a paralegal that has dealt with multiple injunctions over the years, personally & professionally. If Laura Flynn had any concerns about what the injunction involved & didn't involve, then she should have been responsible enough to speak to an attorney about it. Rather, the egotistical asshat chose to play lord of the event by banning Mark & Tom.

I suggest you check the friend's list on Mark Bunker's Facebook page & see how many of them Laura allowed into the event. The cult could have easily used this as a deceptive ploy to allude his FB as "associates". Arnie Lerma is a FB friend. He was a speaker at the event.

https://www.facebook.com/XENUTV

 

[elwood]

Yet, it was roundly advertised, via press releases from Laura Flynn, that it was a public event & free. Laura chose to deceptively misinterpret the injunction because she has also posted she detests Mark Bunker.

If Mark Bunker wanted to, he would have a legal case for suing Laura Flynn for fraud & misrepresentation. Several critics have already expressed they are thinking of suing her for this as she claimed it was a "public event & free to the public" on the Flagdown website. She & Pete solicited donations from the public under this statement. Clearly, Laura Flynn views Flag Down as a private event where she can choose who or who does not attend.

Mark Bunker & Tom Smith are not the only ones told they were not invited & those individuals had zero to do with the injunction.

I suggest that we cool it with the "I'm gonna' sue" rhetoric. I contributed to Debbie Cook's legal defense and I was not happy with the outcome. However, gettin' all legal ain't gonna' solve the problem. The adage "fool me once, shame on you". "Fool me twice, shame on me" ought to apply here. If you think Laura's not straight up, don't contribute next time.

Meanwhile, STFU and and let the conference roll.

 

[Leland]

I suggest that we cool it with the "I'm gonna' sue" rhetoric. I contributed to Debbie Cook's legal defense and I was not happy with the outcome. However, gettin' all legal ain't gonna' solve the problem. The adage "fool me once, shame on you". "Fool me twice, shame on me" ought to apply here. If you think Laura's not straight up, don't contribute next time.

Meanwhile, STFU and and let the conference roll.

Or as JustSheila would say, Just shut your gob!

 

[Smurf]

So are you telling me that anytime I am seen with Tory in Florida that I can never protest Scientology at Clearwater ever again, or just if I am seen with her ever? You all, who know how far these ramifications stretch. Do tell.

Yes. I wish I had the videos of the Riverside County Sheriff Deputy Julian Pollitt threatening to arrest me in 2008 if I protested at Gold Base. Not only was I banned, but the 5 anons riding in the van with me, because the deputy claimed I was an associate of Keith Henson (who has a permanent injunction against him), and because the anons were "associates" of mine, they, in turn, would be associates of Keith Henson as well.

The deputy admitted he received his "facts" from Catherine Fraser at Gold Base. To further show that I was an associate of Keith Henson, Deputy Pollitt showed me a photo taken by the cult of Keith Henson protesting in Clearwater in 1997. Standing 20-25 behind Keith, you can see me holding a camera (I was an OSA op at the time; something the cult chose not to tell the deputy).

I had 3 videos of the deputy & what transpired afterwards, but the RCSD successfully convinced YouTube & Vimeo to remove them because it "violated the deputy's personal privacy".

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ce-BAN-Anonymous-from-protesting-at-Gold-Base

What happened with me & the 5 anons (none of whom knew Keith Henson or ever met him) is a perfect example how the cult misuses the legal & judicial process, and law enforcement, whom are naturally cynical of protesters anyway, choose to conspire right along with the cult.

Thankfully, many anons around the world got pissed & contacted city, county & police officials in Riverside County over this miscarriage of justice, which resulted in the RCSD revoking the claims made against me.