Purple Rain
Crusader
I'd rather be someone who bitched about other critics being treated like shit than treating them like shit or supporting it. But that's just me.
Flagdown 2014: media coverage, etc
- Thread starter sallydannce
- Start date
I'd rather be someone who bitched about other critics being treated like shit than treating them like shit or supporting it. But that's just me.
FoTi
Crusader
Lermanet_com
Gold Meritorious Patron
This is what $cientology spends its money on:
Affidavit: " I, Gaby Vargas state for the record a true and factual event. On
Wednesday August 9, 1995, an unidentified man approached me at my
place of employment and offered me $5,000.00 (Five Thousand Dollars)
to completely stay away from Mr. Thomas C. Padgett. I rejected this offer
immediately in anger and extremely offended by such a low and
unscrupulous action. The man tried again to persuade me in taking the
money stating "are you sure, this is a lot of money to turn down!" I stated
"it may be a lot of money to you, but my morals and principals don't have
a price tag" I so asked him to leave otherwise I would call security. He
left quietly and quickly." http://www.madvillelaw.net/padgett/gaby_vargas.html
He is currently banned by pooks "forever" (quote)
Affidavit: " I, Gaby Vargas state for the record a true and factual event. On
Wednesday August 9, 1995, an unidentified man approached me at my
place of employment and offered me $5,000.00 (Five Thousand Dollars)
to completely stay away from Mr. Thomas C. Padgett. I rejected this offer
immediately in anger and extremely offended by such a low and
unscrupulous action. The man tried again to persuade me in taking the
money stating "are you sure, this is a lot of money to turn down!" I stated
"it may be a lot of money to you, but my morals and principals don't have
a price tag" I so asked him to leave otherwise I would call security. He
left quietly and quickly." http://www.madvillelaw.net/padgett/gaby_vargas.html
He is currently banned by pooks "forever" (quote)
Anonycat
Crusader
Why are you so attached to having the problem? Just do the event elsewhere. Problem solved.
Smurf
Gold Meritorious SP
To my knowledge, he was banned by Patty on the SPs r Us griup because he was screaming OSA at everyone that didn't agree with him. He kinda did the same here on ESMB using sock puppet accounts & was banned by Emma.
tetloj
Silver Meritorious Patron
Ludicrous is Scientology's stock-in-trade
Smurf
Gold Meritorious SP
Derail.
Magoo
Gold Meritorious Patron
Did I ever have a lawyer review the injunction?
Well, that depends on which one you're referring to.
The very 1st one----yes....John Merrett was our attorney and I spent many days in court with $cientology attorneys,
OSA and Ex's and Critics. 2 FULL days were spent on me, and 2 full days on Bob Minton. They were shooting
to pin some sort of criminal decision on me for violating 3 things. Since it only boiled down to one violation,
the serious label was dropped, and I only had to pay $100
for walking down the wrong side of the street carrying my picket sign. He got 6 mo's of probation and *maybe* a fine.
(Both findings still really
as the Judge asked: "How many cameras did you have on these people in a 4 block area?"We *thought* 8-10 at the most. The Head Security guard at Flag stood up and said: "Over 100 Your Honor." That's basically
entrapment!
However, later I found out that the "The Injunction is now lifetime". So I never got to talk to a Judge about that
decision. They just went in and not sure of all the facts on it. But no--I did not have a lawyer review this lifetime
Injunction, nor do I have the $$$ to spend on it. Nor do I have ANY Plans to EVER return to Clearwater, Fl----due to many
other reasons than the insane "Injunction".
What seems like it should be "OK" and how $cientology twists things, are 2 totally different things.
Remember: They have the $$$ to screw around in court. ("Get them in court, keep them in court,
bankrupt them. L Ron Hubbard") <<< THAT *IS* Their Policy they follow.
IF you do not have tons of $$ to fight them--my suggestion is ere on the safe side
and leave Mark Bunker out of it. (Plus I doubt he'd return, ftr).
Same reason I did not go---I did not want to give them a second to run their
on myself or others.Keep the attention on the Conference, the speakers, what they've said and discuss *that*...as that is all that really
matters.
Hope that helps
Tory/Magoo
Last edited:
Lulu Belle
Moonbat
Don't blame you.
I'm in the CW area now...for reasons that have nothing to do with the conference or Scientology. Just one of life's bizzare coincidences.
It's hotter than hell, humid, filled with crazy drivers, and all around nasty. I can't wait to go home.
This place sucks.
Smurf
Gold Meritorious SP
Did I ever have a lawyer review the injunction? Well, that depends on which one you're referring to. The very 1st one----yes....John Merrett was our attorney and I spent many days in court with $cientology attorneys, OSA and Ex's and Critics. 2 FULL days were spent on me, and 2 full days on Bob Minton....
However, later I found out that the "The Injunction is now lifetime". So I never got to talk to a Judge about that decision. They just went in and not sure of all the facts on it. But no--I did not have a lawyer review this lifetime
First of all, a "permanent injunction" is only for a lifetime if it is not challenged in the courts. Anyone listed on that injunction can appeal it at any time, and a judge can override it.
The temporary injunction was made permanent after the judge ruled that it was impossible for the protesters & Scientologists to get along peacefully, and the constant friction between the parties was a threat to public safety. The injunction did not say that the parties could not protest the cult; only that they could not protest in the BLUE areas, but they could protest in the ORANGE areas.
I don't know the boundaries of the orange areas.. maybe you can explain that.
CONCLUSION:
Inasmuch as both the Petitioner and the Respondent have engaged in and continue to engage in the dangerous and threatening practice of seeing how close one another can get to each other while protesting, picketing, and demonstrating each other, have blocked or inhibited the free flow of foot traffic on the public sidewalks, have blocked the flow of traffic on the public roadways, have inhibited the egress and ingress of the parties from their respective buildings, and
have physically touched or attacked each other, it is imperative that all parties must be mutually restrained.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
l. A permanent injunction is entered against the defendants, Robert S. Minton, Jr., Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., Jesse Prince, Grady Ward, Stacy Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander, Mark Bunker and Tory Bezazian, their members, officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction, enjoining them from picketing, protesting, and/or demonstrating in the areas designated in BLUE (the “prohibited zones”) (picketing, protesting and/or demonstrating is ALLOWED in areas designated in ORANGE) on the diagrams of certain
properties owned and/or operated by the Church (see Composite Exhibit A-l attached hereto arid incorporated into this Order), and from engaging in any of the aforementioned activities within ten feet of any entrance or exit actually used frequently on a daily basis to all Church property listed on Exhibit B and not expressly included in the prohibited zones designated in Exhibit A-2.
The foregoing paragraph prohibits picketing, protesting and/or demonstrating in areas designated in BLUE (see Exhibit A-l) as well as in areas within ten feet of any entrance exit actually used frequently on a daily basis to Church property that is not expressly included in the prohibited zones designated in BLUE (see Exhibit B). As to all other areas in Pinellas County, Florida, the named defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them, are free to engage in la 1 picketing, lawful protesting and lawful demonstrating. “Lawful” picketing means “not contrary to or forbidden by law”, provided that at all times while picketing, all persons bound by this injunction shall comply with the anti-noise provisions of this injunction.
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/images/perminj_text.pdf
This video is compelling.. it shows how angry the judge is in dealing with the issue of protests, in general, and that he took the position that all the nastiness that occurred in Scientology protests was mutual, which caused alot of problems with the CPD.
I believe that is you sitting next to John Merritt at the table, right?
[video=youtube;h2dY3GbzOvg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2dY3GbzOvg[/video]
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
You seem to be focused on only critical outpoints about CW.
There are plenty of plus points you chose to ignore, like ummm.....gargantuan palmettos, putrefying mildew & parasitical zombies saving the planet.
RogerB
Crusader
What I am observing and finding interesting and a little disturbing, is that Ci/C and failboat keep asserting an agenda that suits the CofS.
It is a very simple proposition: the injunction is on BOTH parties, the CofS and the named anti-Scn folks, and it defines explicitly the exact small geographic locations to which it applies. It also defines, states and upholds the freedom of the parties named to do as they lawfully choose anywhere else. To wit:
As to all other areas in Pinellas County, Florida, the named defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them, are free to engage in lawful picketing, lawful protesting and lawful demonstrating. "Lawful" picketing means "not contrary to or forbidden by law", provided that at all times while picketing, all persons bound by this injunction shall comply with the anti-noise provisions of this injunction.
I have simply pointed out that for Laura to think or act as she has on the basis that the injunction has any affect on a location other than it defines is an error . . . and particularly so since the injunction itself states the parties are free to act and pursue their business in “all other areas in Pinellas County, Florida.”
But CiC and failboat continue to assert and push the misrepresentation of what the injunction stipulates in a manner that promotes the idea that it restrains ANY association with the named parties in ANY location!
This interpretation being pushed by CiC and failboat obviously serves the interests of the Cof$. Whether or not they are deliberately and knowingly acting in the interests of the Cof$ or as agents on its behalf I will not speculate as I do not know . . . . but that their assertions are in line with the Cof$ interests is an obvious fact.
Whomever it was over at WWP who put the scare into “the organizer(s)” of Flag Down that the parties named in the injunction would cause legal problems for the “organizer(s)” should they attend the conference IN AN ALLOWED JURISDICTION, I don’t know. But I recommend the guys at WWP take a look at the traffic and see who is running the Cof$ agenda on you . . .
What I find disappointing (and revealing) is the tactic used against me and others here who have spoken of the demonstrable limitations and inapplicability of the injunction: the effort to shut us up with the smears such as “you put your ass on the line first” . . . even in that it is to be noted that they are still trumpeting the idea that the Cof$ is a threat in this matter when in fact the Cof$ itself is restrained by the injunction!!!!
Sad to say, while I applaud the speakers and the idea of the conference, the manner in which it has been conducted along with the dialogue trumpeting the boogyman nature of the Cof$ has too much served the interests of the Cof$.
However, having said that, when the videos and tapes of the presentations hit the internet and are hopefully circulated to interested media for its use, a major blow against the cult will occur. It is wonderful to see such an array of knowledgeable talent presenting the facts need to inform the public and society at large of the evil and dangers of this cult.
It is a very simple proposition: the injunction is on BOTH parties, the CofS and the named anti-Scn folks, and it defines explicitly the exact small geographic locations to which it applies. It also defines, states and upholds the freedom of the parties named to do as they lawfully choose anywhere else. To wit:
As to all other areas in Pinellas County, Florida, the named defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them, are free to engage in lawful picketing, lawful protesting and lawful demonstrating. "Lawful" picketing means "not contrary to or forbidden by law", provided that at all times while picketing, all persons bound by this injunction shall comply with the anti-noise provisions of this injunction.
I have simply pointed out that for Laura to think or act as she has on the basis that the injunction has any affect on a location other than it defines is an error . . . and particularly so since the injunction itself states the parties are free to act and pursue their business in “all other areas in Pinellas County, Florida.”
But CiC and failboat continue to assert and push the misrepresentation of what the injunction stipulates in a manner that promotes the idea that it restrains ANY association with the named parties in ANY location!
This interpretation being pushed by CiC and failboat obviously serves the interests of the Cof$. Whether or not they are deliberately and knowingly acting in the interests of the Cof$ or as agents on its behalf I will not speculate as I do not know . . . . but that their assertions are in line with the Cof$ interests is an obvious fact.
Whomever it was over at WWP who put the scare into “the organizer(s)” of Flag Down that the parties named in the injunction would cause legal problems for the “organizer(s)” should they attend the conference IN AN ALLOWED JURISDICTION, I don’t know. But I recommend the guys at WWP take a look at the traffic and see who is running the Cof$ agenda on you . . .
What I find disappointing (and revealing) is the tactic used against me and others here who have spoken of the demonstrable limitations and inapplicability of the injunction: the effort to shut us up with the smears such as “you put your ass on the line first” . . . even in that it is to be noted that they are still trumpeting the idea that the Cof$ is a threat in this matter when in fact the Cof$ itself is restrained by the injunction!!!!
Sad to say, while I applaud the speakers and the idea of the conference, the manner in which it has been conducted along with the dialogue trumpeting the boogyman nature of the Cof$ has too much served the interests of the Cof$.
However, having said that, when the videos and tapes of the presentations hit the internet and are hopefully circulated to interested media for its use, a major blow against the cult will occur. It is wonderful to see such an array of knowledgeable talent presenting the facts need to inform the public and society at large of the evil and dangers of this cult.
failboat
Patron with Honors
No, it's an agenda that is designed to protect conference attendees from legal harassment that Shawn Lonsdale experienced.
Go fight the injunction in court yourself if you want to talk about AMA's errors.
This is not at all what CiC has argued. I agree with his assessment that interaction at a multi-day, anti-Scientology conference with a person named by the LMT injunction is far closer to the line of "acting in concert" than simply being Facebook friends with that person. The fact that conference attendees will be protesting in downtown Clearwater after the conference is also an important consideration.
Painting people who engage in honest debate with you as your mortal enemies is a fallacy of the Godwin type.
No one at WWP put the scare into the organizers. They made this decision on their own, as the links I posted earlier for you show. I am defending their decision. The CoS agenda is not being run at WWP, Mr. Godwin.
As CiC has stated, it's easy for you to criticize, because you did nothing, risked nothing, had no skin in the game, and no responsibility to protect the people who you invited to your city for your 5-day anti-Scientology conference. It wasn't a "smear" to say that you should put your ass on the line first, it was a challenge. You are challenging AMA to potentially violate the LMT injunction. It is only fair that you be challenged to violate it yourself. Put Your Ass On The Line First, Sir. This is not a Smear, but a Challenge.
First reasonable thing you've said in this entire post.
He-man
Hero extraordinary
Lol what a mess.
I don't agree with the decision to exclude anyone named in the injunction, but then again I don't think there is anything wrong with that decision, risks are hard to access when it comes to Scientology and I don't envy anyone setting up a conference on Scientology - in bloody Clearwater.
If the two knew they were not welcome, by the organizer(s), why did they go? If a thing is organized by someone, it doesn't give everyone a right to barge in. If I knew I wasn't welcome at a competitors marketing event or whatever, I wouldn't go.
At the end of the day it is about respect, and allowing people to disagree without making a fuzz about it.
I have one question, was there posted info beforehand on who was not allowed to partake in the conference? If so where can I find it(google is not my friend).EDIT - Got the answer
I don't agree with the decision to exclude anyone named in the injunction, but then again I don't think there is anything wrong with that decision, risks are hard to access when it comes to Scientology and I don't envy anyone setting up a conference on Scientology - in bloody Clearwater.
If the two knew they were not welcome, by the organizer(s), why did they go? If a thing is organized by someone, it doesn't give everyone a right to barge in. If I knew I wasn't welcome at a competitors marketing event or whatever, I wouldn't go.
At the end of the day it is about respect, and allowing people to disagree without making a fuzz about it.
I have one question, was there posted info beforehand on who was not allowed to partake in the conference? If so where can I find it(google is not my friend).EDIT - Got the answer
Last edited:
Lermanet_com
Gold Meritorious Patron
In 2008 efforts were made to get an injunction against ANONYMOUS, to prevent picketing.
In contrast to all these pages of posts in this thread...seems there were only two written items mailed to the judge in opposition to$cientology's Ex-parte request for an injunction against anonymous....
AMICUS BRIEF Pinellas Case 08003597CI
OPPOSITION TO AKIYAMA ROGER EXPARTE FILING
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ANONYMOUS
1) I, Arnaldo Pagliarini Lerma, of 6045 N 26th Road Arlington Virginia participated in February 10th ANONYMOUS protests in Washington DC, the police on duty, were so unconcerned with this event that one of them sat in his squad car reading magazines.
I was a Scientologist for ten years, I now help scientologists recover from the mind control in scientology. I have run and maintained a web site since 1996 titled LERMANET.COM Exposing the CON, dedicated to helping members recover.
2) Over 7000 people demonstrated around the world on February 10th, A video compilation of those events titled Tribute to Anonymous is available at http://www.Lermanet.com/anonymous.htm
3) There was not one incident of violence by protesters worldwide reported in the media. There was not one protester arrested or charged anywhere in the world.
4) I have participated in 4 protests against Scientology in Clearwater in the past. The only incidents I recall were perpetrated by Scientologists. - Protestor Robert Minton was assaulted and another incident , Emmy Award winning videographer, Mark Bunker, while filming, his camera was attacked by a Scientologist wielding a hammer.
5) The use of face masks is not a threat, it is a direct response to Scientology's reputation
for retribution. See Http://www.Lermanet.com/persecution/
6) The expression of pubic sentiment and opposition to nefarious conduct by lawful, peaceful free association and assembly in public spaces, serves as an outlet for public outrage and thus, serves to prevent future violence
7) If every statement in Mr Akiyama's complaint were to be fully investigated, it would likely be found that the incident or incident(s) were choreographed and/or misstated, and that the complaint was written and approved by officers for Scientology organization.
8) Illinois Department Law Enforcement Lieutenant Dennis Marlock stresses repeatedly on his website Fraudtech.org that the favorite method of CONfidence artists is to omit important information. To wit:
A
The only actual injuries described in scientology's motion for protective order are from the 1996 Portland shooting incident. Scientology's filings OMIT that this was committed by a disgruntled Scientologist, not by "Anonymous." The perpetrators name was Jairus Godelka, he was a Scientologist.B
The scary guy in the the van in Bakersfield was also, a Scientologist member. See: http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/calif-bakersfield-04061996.htm“Scientologist car bombing suspect pleads guilty in plea-bargain.” The Bakersfield Californian, Saturday June 1, 1996.
9) It is my informed belief that Mr Akiyama has been stationed in Boston, where his most recent job for scientology is to monitor the internet. How could a current resident of Boston feel threatened by a peaceful crowd 1500 miles away?
10) It is my informed belief that Paul Kellerhaus was seen driving in a vehicle freely around downtown Clearwater during the February 10 demonstrations with one arm on the steering wheel and the other filming the crowds. This is not conduct in character of a terrified victim seeking to have a Judge set the Constitutionally protected right of public assembly.
11) It is my informed belief that Mr Heber Jetszch has not been heard from publicly for some years, I and many of the protesters planning to attend pickets on March 15th, are more concerned with his welfare due to his involvement in scientology than any other reason. His location is unknown to this writer, who has no reports of him even being seen in the Clearwater area. In 1995, after 17 days of what Scientology described as “care” member Lisa McPherson was dead. In Italy a few weeks ago another member of Scientology, an “OT” was held against her will in similar fashion, she was lucky, she dropped notes out her window saying was being held and was rescued by authorities after neighbors found the notes. I am most concerned about Mr Jentzch's health due to recent revelations of beatings of senior staff members as described by the one who designed that famous exploding volcano TV ad for Dianetics, ex-member Mr Jeff Hawkins. See http://www.lermanet.com for link to radio interview.
11) For reference please see http://www.scientologykids.com, Jenna Miscavige niece of leader David Miscavige, and Kendra Wiseman, the daughter of the head of CCHR, Bruce Wiseman will confirm the choreographed nature of scientology.
12) In a 1995 civil case, No. 95-1107-A in a 29 November 1995 Memorandum Opinion, US Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema stated:
"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics.
13) Scientology fooled this writer for ten years, please don't let them fool you for ten minutes I beg the Court to DENY this motion for any sort of Temporary Restraining or Protective Order.
Signed under Penalty of Perjury of the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia
_______________________ _______________________
Arnaldo Lerma date Witness date
AMICUS BREIF
Pinellas Case 08003597CI
OPPOSITION TO AKIYAMA ROGER EXPARTE FILING
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ANONYMOUS
1) I, Jon R. Enerson, of 9901 Rainbow Lane, Port Richey, Florida
Observed and photographed the February 10th ANONYMOUS protests in Clearwater Florida. During the course of the entire day of protests in Clearwater I observed not one single incident of violence toward scientology properties or representatives of scientology. A videographer working that day for the Clearwater Police Department remarked to me that he had seen no incidents of violence during the day. The videotape taken by the CWPD should be available for your inspection. To my knowledge and belief not one single protester was arrested or detained by Clearwater police on February 10, 2008.
2) Over 7000 people demonstrated around the world on February 10th, A
video compilation of those events titled Tribute to Anonymous is available at http://www.Lermanet.com/anonymous.htm
3) There was not one incident of violence worldwide reported in the
media. There was not one protester arrested or charged anywhere in the world.
4) I have participated in numerous protests against Scientology in Clearwater in the past. The only incidents of violence I know of were perpetrated by Scientologists. Protestor Robert Minton was assaulted by a scientology representative. In another incident, videographer, Mark Bunker, was attacked by a Scientologist wielding a hammer. Critic of Scientology, Mr. Mike Krotz, was physically assaulted by a scientology representative, Mr. Dennis Clark, which resulted in Mr. Krotz filing complaint with the CWPD. I have never personally witnessed any act of violence upon a scientologist or scientology property by a protester in Clearwater, Florida.
5) In 2001 I was a defendant in an action brought by Scientology in Pinellas County, Florida on an order to show cause for contempt of Judge Thomas Pennick’s, then temporary, injunction relating to the now defunct Lisa McPherson Trust. I was acquitted in this action. I have personal experience with the legal machinations of Scientology with respect to their concerted efforts to silence all criticism of Scientology in Clearwater Florida.
6) My personal experience with the actions of scientology prior and subsequent to Judge Pennick’s permanent injunction was that Scientology persisted in a pattern of ignoring the bilateral nature of the injunction and attempted to use the injunction to bludgeon any citizen that chose to protest scientology in Clearwater into silence. Those citizens lacked any affiliation with the Lisa McPherson Trust and were unidentified by Scientology, yet were served copies of the injunction order. In short, Scientology served process on numerous unknown protesters with Judge Pennick’s temporary and permanent injunction as a tool with which to silence legal and peaceful protest in Clearwater. Video evidence of this pattern of behavior by scientology may be viewed at the following internet web link:
http://www.xenutv.com/pickets/cw-03-17-01.htm
In the above referenced video you may observe Mr. Pete Thornburg who represented himself as a process server, in the employ of Wallace F. Pope Esq., serving copies of Judge Pennick’s temporary injunction on several private citizens of the Clearwater area. The names of these individuals were completely unknown to scientology, Mr. Thornburg or Mr. Pope. None of the served individuals were affiliated with the Lisa McPherson Trust or were named individuals in the injunction.
If the court were to grant plaintiff’s motion for restraining order and/or injunctive relief, it is my certain belief that the previously demonstrated pattern of abuse of Judge Pennick’s order will be repeated by scientology to again attempt to silence any and all dissent and protest of scientology in Clearwater Florida. There will again be nothing to preclude scientology from claiming that any and every private citizen that dares to protest scientology is a member of “Anonymous” or is acting in “concert or participation” with Anonymous.
I believe this to be a very dangerous “back door” to prior restraint of our constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech. Scientology has clearly demonstrated that they will not hesitate to kick open this door to attempt such restraint under color of the court’s orders.
Scientology corporately, and through its agents such as the present plaintiffs, seeks a tool with which to silence all public criticism.
7) The expression of pubic sentiment and opposition to odious or nefarious conduct by lawful, peaceful, free association and assembly in public spaces is the constitutionally guaranteed right of all citizens.
8) I implore the court to make a very careful examination of the alleged incidents of violence that plaintiffs have presented in their complaint. It is well known fact that some of the incidents alleged were perpetrated by disgruntled scientology members themselves. In particular, I refer to the cited incident of one Mr. Gamboa. By presenting this incident in their complaint and thereby inferring that such was an act committed by “Anonymous”, plaintiffs have perpetrated a falsehood upon the court. The nature of Mr. Gamboa’s relationship with scientology has been well known and well documented to many, including Scientology, for over a decade. Similar falsehoods are to be found in other cited incidents of violence contained in plaintiff’s motion. I strongly urge the court to thoroughly scrutinize plaintiff’s allegations inferring “Anonymous” as the perpetrator absent of specific evidence. It is apparent that plaintiffs have simply presented a “laundry list” of egregious acts and assume the court will accept that these were acts either supported by, or perpetrated by, Anonymous without specific evidence to support such claim. I trust the court will see clearly through this charade.
9) I am not a member of “Anonymous” and hold no position as a leader, officer or organizer of said group. I have followed the “Anonymous” community on the internet for some time and it is my belief that no official leadership or organizational structure exists within the Anonymous community except that which might spontaneously and temporarily exist from time to time by various and different individuals who step forward by their own initiative, and may do so only as a temporary, unelected and unofficial, spokesperson or representative for the community. “Anonymous” is bereft of traditional organization or distinct standing leadership. To the best of my knowledge and belief, individuals specifically named in the plaintiff’s motion are simply those citizens that have protested Scientology and that Scientology has been able to identify through its investigations or other efforts.
In the interest of protection of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of all citizens, I beg the Court to DENY the Plaintiff’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and /or Injunctive Relief.
Signed under Penalty of Perjury of the Laws of the State of Florida.
================
The judge DENIED $cientology's request for injunction.
Purple Rain
Crusader
In 2008 efforts were made to get an injunction against ANONYMOUS, to prevent picketing.
In contrast to all these pages of posts in this thread...seems there were only two written items mailed to the judge in opposition to$cientology's Ex-parte request for an injunction against anonymous....
AMICUS BRIEF Pinellas Case 08003597CI
OPPOSITION TO AKIYAMA ROGER EXPARTE FILING
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ANONYMOUS
1) I, Arnaldo Pagliarini Lerma, of 6045 N 26th Road Arlington Virginia participated in February 10th ANONYMOUS protests in Washington DC, the police on duty, were so unconcerned with this event that one of them sat in his squad car reading magazines.
I was a Scientologist for ten years, I now help scientologists recover from the mind control in scientology. I have run and maintained a web site since 1996 titled LERMANET.COM Exposing the CON, dedicated to helping members recover.
2) Over 7000 people demonstrated around the world on February 10th, A video compilation of those events titled Tribute to Anonymous is available at http://www.Lermanet.com/anonymous.htm
3) There was not one incident of violence by protesters worldwide reported in the media. There was not one protester arrested or charged anywhere in the world.
4) I have participated in 4 protests against Scientology in Clearwater in the past. The only incidents I recall were perpetrated by Scientologists. - Protestor Robert Minton was assaulted and another incident , Emmy Award winning videographer, Mark Bunker, while filming, his camera was attacked by a Scientologist wielding a hammer.
5) The use of face masks is not a threat, it is a direct response to Scientology's reputation
for retribution. See Http://www.Lermanet.com/persecution/
6) The expression of pubic sentiment and opposition to nefarious conduct by lawful, peaceful free association and assembly in public spaces, serves as an outlet for public outrage and thus, serves to prevent future violence
7) If every statement in Mr Akiyama's complaint were to be fully investigated, it would likely be found that the incident or incident(s) were choreographed and/or misstated, and that the complaint was written and approved by officers for Scientology organization.
8) Illinois Department Law Enforcement Lieutenant Dennis Marlock stresses repeatedly on his website Fraudtech.org that the favorite method of CONfidence artists is to omit important information. To wit:
A
B
“Scientologist car bombing suspect pleads guilty in plea-bargain.” The Bakersfield Californian, Saturday June 1, 1996.
9) It is my informed belief that Mr Akiyama has been stationed in Boston, where his most recent job for scientology is to monitor the internet. How could a current resident of Boston feel threatened by a peaceful crowd 1500 miles away?
10) It is my informed belief that Paul Kellerhaus was seen driving in a vehicle freely around downtown Clearwater during the February 10 demonstrations with one arm on the steering wheel and the other filming the crowds. This is not conduct in character of a terrified victim seeking to have a Judge set the Constitutionally protected right of public assembly.
11) It is my informed belief that Mr Heber Jetszch has not been heard from publicly for some years, I and many of the protesters planning to attend pickets on March 15th, are more concerned with his welfare due to his involvement in scientology than any other reason. His location is unknown to this writer, who has no reports of him even being seen in the Clearwater area. In 1995, after 17 days of what Scientology described as “care” member Lisa McPherson was dead. In Italy a few weeks ago another member of Scientology, an “OT” was held against her will in similar fashion, she was lucky, she dropped notes out her window saying was being held and was rescued by authorities after neighbors found the notes. I am most concerned about Mr Jentzch's health due to recent revelations of beatings of senior staff members as described by the one who designed that famous exploding volcano TV ad for Dianetics, ex-member Mr Jeff Hawkins. See http://www.lermanet.com for link to radio interview.
11) For reference please see http://www.scientologykids.com, Jenna Miscavige niece of leader David Miscavige, and Kendra Wiseman, the daughter of the head of CCHR, Bruce Wiseman will confirm the choreographed nature of scientology.
12) In a 1995 civil case, No. 95-1107-A in a 29 November 1995 Memorandum Opinion, US Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema stated:
"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics.
13) Scientology fooled this writer for ten years, please don't let them fool you for ten minutes I beg the Court to DENY this motion for any sort of Temporary Restraining or Protective Order.
Signed under Penalty of Perjury of the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia
_______________________ _______________________
Arnaldo Lerma date Witness date
AMICUS BREIF
Pinellas Case 08003597CI
OPPOSITION TO AKIYAMA ROGER EXPARTE FILING
FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST ANONYMOUS
1) I, Jon R. Enerson, of 9901 Rainbow Lane, Port Richey, Florida
Observed and photographed the February 10th ANONYMOUS protests in Clearwater Florida. During the course of the entire day of protests in Clearwater I observed not one single incident of violence toward scientology properties or representatives of scientology. A videographer working that day for the Clearwater Police Department remarked to me that he had seen no incidents of violence during the day. The videotape taken by the CWPD should be available for your inspection. To my knowledge and belief not one single protester was arrested or detained by Clearwater police on February 10, 2008.
2) Over 7000 people demonstrated around the world on February 10th, A
video compilation of those events titled Tribute to Anonymous is available at http://www.Lermanet.com/anonymous.htm
3) There was not one incident of violence worldwide reported in the
media. There was not one protester arrested or charged anywhere in the world.
4) I have participated in numerous protests against Scientology in Clearwater in the past. The only incidents of violence I know of were perpetrated by Scientologists. Protestor Robert Minton was assaulted by a scientology representative. In another incident, videographer, Mark Bunker, was attacked by a Scientologist wielding a hammer. Critic of Scientology, Mr. Mike Krotz, was physically assaulted by a scientology representative, Mr. Dennis Clark, which resulted in Mr. Krotz filing complaint with the CWPD. I have never personally witnessed any act of violence upon a scientologist or scientology property by a protester in Clearwater, Florida.
5) In 2001 I was a defendant in an action brought by Scientology in Pinellas County, Florida on an order to show cause for contempt of Judge Thomas Pennick’s, then temporary, injunction relating to the now defunct Lisa McPherson Trust. I was acquitted in this action. I have personal experience with the legal machinations of Scientology with respect to their concerted efforts to silence all criticism of Scientology in Clearwater Florida.
6) My personal experience with the actions of scientology prior and subsequent to Judge Pennick’s permanent injunction was that Scientology persisted in a pattern of ignoring the bilateral nature of the injunction and attempted to use the injunction to bludgeon any citizen that chose to protest scientology in Clearwater into silence. Those citizens lacked any affiliation with the Lisa McPherson Trust and were unidentified by Scientology, yet were served copies of the injunction order. In short, Scientology served process on numerous unknown protesters with Judge Pennick’s temporary and permanent injunction as a tool with which to silence legal and peaceful protest in Clearwater. Video evidence of this pattern of behavior by scientology may be viewed at the following internet web link:
http://www.xenutv.com/pickets/cw-03-17-01.htm
In the above referenced video you may observe Mr. Pete Thornburg who represented himself as a process server, in the employ of Wallace F. Pope Esq., serving copies of Judge Pennick’s temporary injunction on several private citizens of the Clearwater area. The names of these individuals were completely unknown to scientology, Mr. Thornburg or Mr. Pope. None of the served individuals were affiliated with the Lisa McPherson Trust or were named individuals in the injunction.
If the court were to grant plaintiff’s motion for restraining order and/or injunctive relief, it is my certain belief that the previously demonstrated pattern of abuse of Judge Pennick’s order will be repeated by scientology to again attempt to silence any and all dissent and protest of scientology in Clearwater Florida. There will again be nothing to preclude scientology from claiming that any and every private citizen that dares to protest scientology is a member of “Anonymous” or is acting in “concert or participation” with Anonymous.
I believe this to be a very dangerous “back door” to prior restraint of our constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech. Scientology has clearly demonstrated that they will not hesitate to kick open this door to attempt such restraint under color of the court’s orders.
Scientology corporately, and through its agents such as the present plaintiffs, seeks a tool with which to silence all public criticism.
7) The expression of pubic sentiment and opposition to odious or nefarious conduct by lawful, peaceful, free association and assembly in public spaces is the constitutionally guaranteed right of all citizens.
8) I implore the court to make a very careful examination of the alleged incidents of violence that plaintiffs have presented in their complaint. It is well known fact that some of the incidents alleged were perpetrated by disgruntled scientology members themselves. In particular, I refer to the cited incident of one Mr. Gamboa. By presenting this incident in their complaint and thereby inferring that such was an act committed by “Anonymous”, plaintiffs have perpetrated a falsehood upon the court. The nature of Mr. Gamboa’s relationship with scientology has been well known and well documented to many, including Scientology, for over a decade. Similar falsehoods are to be found in other cited incidents of violence contained in plaintiff’s motion. I strongly urge the court to thoroughly scrutinize plaintiff’s allegations inferring “Anonymous” as the perpetrator absent of specific evidence. It is apparent that plaintiffs have simply presented a “laundry list” of egregious acts and assume the court will accept that these were acts either supported by, or perpetrated by, Anonymous without specific evidence to support such claim. I trust the court will see clearly through this charade.
9) I am not a member of “Anonymous” and hold no position as a leader, officer or organizer of said group. I have followed the “Anonymous” community on the internet for some time and it is my belief that no official leadership or organizational structure exists within the Anonymous community except that which might spontaneously and temporarily exist from time to time by various and different individuals who step forward by their own initiative, and may do so only as a temporary, unelected and unofficial, spokesperson or representative for the community. “Anonymous” is bereft of traditional organization or distinct standing leadership. To the best of my knowledge and belief, individuals specifically named in the plaintiff’s motion are simply those citizens that have protested Scientology and that Scientology has been able to identify through its investigations or other efforts.
In the interest of protection of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of all citizens, I beg the Court to DENY the Plaintiff’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and /or Injunctive Relief.
Signed under Penalty of Perjury of the Laws of the State of Florida.
================
The judge DENIED $cientology's request for injunction.
You are so awesome, Arnie - on so many levels. I just have massive respect for you.
failboat
Patron with Honors
BTW, I'm getting sick of this meme you're trying to propagate that WWP and the people who disagree with you are somehow running the agenda/ops (knowingly or unknowingly) for CoS.
AMA just posted last night about who put the "scare" into the Clearwater cell.
https://whyweprotest.net/community/...unction-discussion.118319/page-8#post-2451832
In case you don't know who Gabe Cazares was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabe_Cazares
Steffens: http://pascosheriff.us/captain-james-steffens/
His bio matches what AMA says - in 2008 he was in command of District II in Clearwater.
Shawn Lonsdale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Lonsdale
Type4_PTS
Diamond Invictus SP
Failboat, correct me if I'm wrong as IANAL, but it is my understanding that Mark Bunker does in fact have the right to protest in Clearwater, including near Flag, however the precise locations he chooses to protest are limited by the injunction. And the geographical restrictions are spelled out in the injunction).
If that is true, I could choose to protest with Mark Bunker today in Clearwater and neither one of us would have any legal issues as long as we strictly adhered to the terms of the injunction, is that correct? Or am I misunderstanding something?
If that is true, I could choose to protest with Mark Bunker today in Clearwater and neither one of us would have any legal issues as long as we strictly adhered to the terms of the injunction, is that correct? Or am I misunderstanding something?
failboat
Patron with Honors
IANAL, so I don't know either. My understanding is that the action you described may affect your ability to protest in Clearwater in the future, especially in areas designated by the injunction.
Here's CiC's scenario again, modified slightly for the situation you describe: (changes in blue)
CiC followed by saying that this may not be a legally correct argument; however, it would not stop the CoS from making it if they chose to do so, thus causing you to endure all the legal headaches resultant.
And in another post, CiC pointed out that,
Anonycat
Crusader
Good points. I'd add to that, the test of the injunction as it relates to the event, has already happened by virtue of Arnie being a part of it. They didn't use that as an in to use the injunction. Does it 'prove" they couldn't cause a frivolous suit? NO. Obviously to me, nothing "proves" they won't in the future, it's just that they didn't. By that test, I'd say it was fine for Mark to attend, and also to protest within the guidelines of the injunction.