Flagdown 2014: media coverage, etc
- Thread starter sallydannce
- Start date
CommunicatorIC
@IndieScieNews on Twitter
You keep on bringing up the theory of being Facebook Friends as a basis for being found to "acting in concert" as if anyone here was arguing in favor of that theory. No one was. I certainly wasn't. The only person to raise the "Facebook Friinds = "acting in concert" theory was you, and you did so as a read herring in a poor attempt, based on a weak analogy, to argue that greater forms of contact, communication and association specifically concerning the subject of Scientology would also not qualify as "acting in concert."Yes, the cult can claim we are all "associates" of each other (and they do) because we are Facebook friends with each other & we posts all Internet blogs & groups critical of Scientology.
Does it have any legal backing to the claims? No. Don't be put off by all the Perry Mason wannabes posting here.
Yes, the COS can argue anything. But some arguments are more credible, more threatening, more legally dangerous than others. The "Facebook Friinds = "acting in concert" theory is frivolous. That doesn't mean "acting in concert" arguments based on personal meetings, association, communication, etc. on the subject of Scientology would be equally frivolous and weak.
One problem is that the "acting in concert" language is put in injunctions for a reason. It has meaning.
The second problem is that "acting in concert" language is vague. There is no bright line rule. At some point, at some level of communication, association, etc., and particularly on the subject of the injunction (i.e., Scientology or the picketing thereof), a trial judge may very well say, "Given your meetings and conversations with Mr. Bunker (or other person named on the injunction) about Scientology (and perhaps also the picketing thereof), I find you were acting in concert with him with regard your picketing activities and are therefore subject to the permanent injunction." Maybe the trial judge would be wrong, but by this time one would be in litigation hell, have already incurred attorney's fees and now would have to appeal.
Indeed, if it can never the the case that meeting, association, interaction, and communication with Mark (or other named person) about the subject of Scientology qualifies as "acting in concert," the "acting in concert" language would be superfluous. That is not how court orders and injunctions are interpreted.
Leaving aside the Flag Down debacle, the bigger problem is Mark Bunker moving down to Clearwater while he is still subject to the injunction. Of course he had a perfect right to do so. He has a right to picket. He has a right to challenge the injunction in Court. He has a right to take whatever risks he wants to take. On the other hand, if I was an Anon or other person who picketed the COS in Clearwater, I would not be spending a lot of time hanging out with Mark talking about Scientology, and perhaps being videoed, recorded, or photographed doing so, specifically because of the "acting in concert" language of the injunction. Again, I would know that the "acting in concert" language means something.
I've seen it suggested above that "someone" challenge the injunction -- though (and I may have missed something) it seems like that "someone" should for some reason be anyone other than Mark, the person named in the injunction who lives in Clearwater.
In any event, if anyone thinks that the injunction should be challenged, I would hope they would contribute to the fund to pay the attorney's fees.
And if anyone thinks that the injunction should be challenged by potentially violating it (rather than by prior court proceeding), I would hope that they would do so themselves, and incur the cost and risk, rather than insist that others do so
Smurf
Gold Meritorious SP
failboat
Patron with Honors
^^ This. Dear God, this. ^^
Why, oh why, is there a fundamental difference between a majority on WWP vs. a majority on ESMB as to whom the burden lies with to challenge the LMT injunction? Why is there this dogged insistence that Clearwater Anons be the ones to potentially violate it? Why are we not insisting that the people who think "that the injunction should be challenged by potentially violating it (rather than by prior court proceeding)...do so themselves" ? Why are we not insisting that these people put up the funding for potential legal expenses ahead of time?
So far, only Purple Rain, who I'm assuming isn't a US citizen since she lives out of the country, has offered to violate it. I applaud her, but I wish that a definitive US citizen & resident would step up.
Last edited:
FoTi
Crusader
Purple Rain
Crusader
I am a legal resident in the US, although I am Australian. And yeah, I would like to challenge it. I'm not saying it's anybody else's responsibility - I just don't like to have my friends and associates dictated to me by the cult of Scientology. They did that for long enough then they silenced my voice for two decades more with their fear. I'm so over it. Rights should mean something.
Smurf
Gold Meritorious SP
If you're done chewing on this, would you please swallow it or spit it out.
Why It’s Smart to Let Toxic People Have the Last Word
http://lightshouse.org/lights-blog/...toxic-people-have-the-last-word#axzz315qG1fOf
Helena Handbasket
Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm late to this thread so I don't know how this particular argument has played out, but you're being pretty annoying. You keep telling PR to ask when it's clear she doesn't want to (and she doesn't have to do anything she doesn't want to). So why don't you just STFU already.
Helena
Helena Handbasket
Gold Meritorious Patron
I don't really know, but it seems that anyone who would give the C of S any excuse (justified or not) for shutting down the conference would be turned away.
Helena
failboat
Patron with Honors
It played out with PR thanking me twice. Once after the post you quoted, and once in a later post.
You're welcome.
(sorry to be insufferable, but you were asking for it.)
Smurf
Gold Meritorious SP
Helena, if that was the case, any number of those in attendance at Flag Down could be construed as "associates" of Mark Bunker because they post on ESMB, WWP, OCMB or any blog critical of the cult, where Mark has also posted.
The injunction given to Laura Flynn & Pete Griffiths included a photo of Mark appearing in a photo with Pete Griffith at a Dubin, Ireland protest. If Laura Flynn was truly concerned about the injunction, she would have given Pete Griffith the boot, too, because the photograph clearly shows Mark standing next to Pete, therefore, Pete is an associate of Mark (in the cult's eyes).
Purple Rain
Crusader
Thanks for your concern, Helena. I really do appreciate it, but I am ok with failboat. I respect that he or she is defending a friend. My ex is on the "AMA side" and we have talked about it a little, but we are not fighting or anything. The whole thing is just unfortunate really.
CommunicatorIC
@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Two considerations.
First, whether Pete Griffiths thinks he has any legal risk picketing due to having a picture taken with Mark in Dublin is up to him.
Second, as to other attendees, the two situations are not the same, and there is now the degree of separation problem.
(A) To say that person "X" is acting in concert with Mark Buniker based on Mark Bundker himself attending the conference , having lengthy conversations with person "X" about Scientology, etc., is one thing.
(B) It is quite another thing to argue that person "X" is acting in concert with Mark Bunker based on (1) Pete Griffiths attending the conference, having lengthy conversations with person "X, etc. AND (2) Pete Griffiths having had his picture taken with Mark Bunker in Dublin. In this case, the argument would have to be that Pete Griffiths is acting is concert with Mark Bunker based on the single Dublin picture, and person "X" is acting in concert with Pete Griffiths based on their mutual attendance at the conference, conversations, etc., so therefore person "X" is acting in concert with Mark Bunker.
The situations in (A) and (B) above are not the same. Not even close. The connection between person "X" to Mark Bunker is far more attenuated in situation (B) than it is in situation (A). In situation (A) there is an additional degree of separation, and/or an additional necessary link.
If I was person "X," I'd be much more concerned about the COS asserting, and a court finding, I was acting in concert with Mark Bunker in situation (A) than in situation (B). I think it much more likely that the COS would assert, and a court would find, that I was acting in concert with Mark Bunker if I attended an anti-Scientology conference and had lengthy conversation directly with Mark, than if I attended a Scientology conference, and had lengthy conversations, with a person who had his picture taken with Mark on a different continent.
That just may be me.
Lermanet_com
Gold Meritorious Patron
please?
Purple Rain
Crusader
It's just as ludicrous to assert that you are acting in concert with somebody because you attend the same conference. FFS.
CommunicatorIC
@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Except that is not what I ever said. I said attend the same conference for several days, have extensive conversations with the person listed on the injunction, have those conversations witnessed, videoed, recorded and/or recorded by a PI, etc. Under those circumstances I don't think it would be unexpected for the COS to assert that the person was acting in concert with Mark.
You may differ. But then again, it wasn't your call, you had no responsibility, no risk, and no skin in the game. You weren't responsible for a bunch of attendees who you knew would be protesting the COS at the end of the week. You just get to bitch about the decision later.
Smurf
Gold Meritorious SP
Geir & his girlfriend Anette visited downtown Clearwater recently & reported it on her blog..
http://anetteiren.com/where-are-all-scientologists-fresh-report-from-clearwater
Two photos from today's bus tour.. someone reported a "confrontation" taking place involving Screech (Sarah Heller, OSA paralegal) who called police.
http://anetteiren.com/where-are-all-scientologists-fresh-report-from-clearwater
Two photos from today's bus tour.. someone reported a "confrontation" taking place involving Screech (Sarah Heller, OSA paralegal) who called police.
Smurf
Gold Meritorious SP
Sadly, that task laid with an incompetent, self-serving egotist who had no issue soliciting donations from critics for "her" event, including from those she, personally, said were not invited.
