Flagdown 2014: media coverage, etc

[elwood]

40 pages of people repeating themselves? Get a life, folks. There is another thread on the speakers. If you care about something other than flaming each other, go there.

 

[Type4_PTS]

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.

So it sounds like I can protest, even if I am clearly seen to be operating in concert with Mark Bunker (or others as specified in the injunction), as long as I am not personally violating the injunction.

Snipped from the above:

(6) you violated the injunction if you picketed in a prohibited zone (as set forth in the injunction) or in a prohibited way (e.g., within 10 feet of a COS member).

^^^^^^

As long as I understand where the prohibited zones are and avoid them than I can avoid any legal issues.

If the CoS cannot later produce video or pictures showing me picketing/protesting in the prohibited zones it would be simple to later defend if necessary.

What I don't understand the 2'nd part of #6 I copied above.

If I do a protest in an area which is not in a prohibited zone, and there are no COS members in sight, but later a busload of COS members get dropped off right where I am, would I be in violation of the injunction even though I chose a spot that was not prohibited, and I had no control over COS members who come within 10 feet of me?

EDIT: Disregard the above questions. As I might be at the Saturday protest in Clearwater I'm just going to read the injunction myself as Rog suggested. (I answered my own question, the answer being here)

 

[RogerB]

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?

Well, Type4 . . . you are correct.

It is fully spelled out in the injunction, and I have highlighted the relevant clauses in color in my posts above.

You are free to associate with and protest with Mark in any other part of Pinellas County as I cited in post #392 above from the injunction:

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."
​

​

 

[Lurker Eva]

It's too bad how this all went down with Mark Bunker. It derails from the issue at hand, the abuse of COS.

Reading all this I was wandering, would it not have been possible to use this injunction as an example.
Set up a stupid booth or something, with the number of chairs as names listed in the injunction and make a sign for it.
That way nobody would have to be sent away and it's a perfect example of what the COS does, even if all the chairs stayed empty, it's a statement.
And a remembrance of a long time against the COS and still going strong.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Anonycat]

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

Yes, someone is up to it. You can find out more here: http://www.gofundme.com/5ty4fw

 

[Purple Rain]

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.

You know, false legal bullshit is served on people all the time if they are in the cult's crosshairs. (See Aaron Saxton).

[video=youtube;VPrrQ-Zh15U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPrrQ-Zh15U[/video]

This is why people leave and shut the hell up - just try to fade out of sight and disappear. If you can't afford the consequences then don't tangle with them. Seriously. Just write to your congressmen and so forth. It really is that simple. In places where there is no injunction they use other shit.

If you are afraid of them, stay away from them. But don't go around bragging, "We run this," when running this means disconnecting from any other critic in order to be "allowed" to protest "safely". Don't bullshit about running it. It's just not true.

Edit: Of course sympathetic media can highlight these issues if you don't kick them out of your event as well.

 

[failboat]

You know, false legal bullshit is served on people all the time if they are in the cult's crosshairs. (See Aaron Saxton).

[video=youtube;VPrrQ-Zh15U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPrrQ-Zh15U[/video]

This is why people leave and shut the hell up - just try to fade out of sight and disappear. If you can't afford the consequences then don't tangle with them. Seriously. Just write to your congressmen and so forth. It really is that simple. In places where there is no injunction they use other shit.

If you are afraid of them, stay away from them. But don't go around bragging, "We run this," when running this means disconnecting from any other critic in order to be "allowed" to protest "safely". Don't bullshit about running it. It's just not true.

Edit: Of course sympathetic media can highlight these issues if you don't kick them out of your event as well.

It's adorable that you keep addressing these comments to me, when I was not one of the event's organizers.

Once again, you should be directing these comments to AMA. I already provided you with contact info earlier in this thread.

 

[Purple Rain]

It's adorable that you keep addressing these comments to me, when I was not one of the event's organizers.

Once again, you should be directing these comments to AMA. I already provided you with contact info earlier in this thread.

You can patronise me all you like, but it seems you are allowed to address your comments to the whole messageboard and I am to address mine to AMA. AMA is as free to comment at any time as anyone else. That is her choice or not. Consider my adorable comments a response TO your posts rather than being personally directed AT you, how about that?

 

[Type4_PTS]

If I do a protest in an area which is not in a prohibited zone, and there are no COS members in sight, but later a busload of COS members get dropped off right where I am, would I be in violation of the injunction even though I chose a spot that was not prohibited, and I had no control over COS members who come within 10 feet of me?

I've just read the actual injunction, and the answer to the above question I asked is NO, I would not be in violation. Actually the COS members who came within 10 feet of ME would be in violation of the injunction. (if THEY were officially notified of the injunction).

http://www.lisamcpherson.org/images/perminj_text.pdf



Also, I see that I am not presently subject to the injunction or restricted by it as I haven't actually been served notice of it:

 

[Anonycat]

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?

Yes, Mark is free to protest there. It's all specified in the injunction. What's more, no scilon or their agents, etc., may get closer than 10 feet from him.

 

[failboat]

Yes, someone is up to it. You can find out more here: http://www.gofundme.com/5ty4fw

Updated posted by Mark Bunker 2 months ago

Denis and I have decided to not go to court at this time.

[video=youtube;VtPZSospkeI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VtPZSospkeI[/video]

Minutes 16, 17, and 18 are the critical minutes where he says he is not going to go forward with the motion designed to challenge the injunction, unless they escalate harassment of Bunker via the injunction while he lives in Clearwater. He also offers refunds to people who contributed to the legal fund.

https://whyweprotest.net/community/...rmanent-injunction.115848/page-3#post-2417769

tl;dr WBM and his lawyer have decided for now to abandon their efforts to get the injunction removed. In exchange, the Co$ has verbally agreed not to complain to the cops if WBM happens to stand in at the grocery store next to a Scientologist or runs into one in a condo hallway. If you want your donation returned or will let him save the dono for future lawyer fees or want him to use your dono to finish his movie, let WBM know. Oh, and he loves living in Clearwater and might one day run for Mayor.
​

Nancy Beazley, Feb 8, 2014

 

[Anonycat]

[video=youtube;VtPZSospkeI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VtPZSospkeI[/video]

Minutes 16, 17, and 18 are the critical minutes where he says he is not going to go forward with the motion designed to challenge the injunction, unless they escalate harassment of Bunker via the injunction while he lives in Clearwater. He also offers refunds to people who contributed to the legal fund.

https://whyweprotest.net/community/...rmanent-injunction.115848/page-3#post-2417769

So, you saw the post where it says no one but HIM would be in any legal danger, due to the injunction. See, there was nothing to worry about. This was taken care of 2 months ago.

Updated posted by Mark Bunker 2 months ago

A big thanks to everyone who has donated. I put together a video the other day talking about the case. I hired the terrific attorney Denis deVlaming and he put together a motion to take this injunction back to court. We met with the police department last Thursday. They had input into shaping the original injunction back in 2000. We had hoped that they would support us in having it removed but they are going to tell the judge that they want it to stay in place. They also said outright to us in the meeting that the police will only enforce it against named defendants which at this point...is just me. So others should not have to worry about it being used against them. Denis and I have decided to not go to court at this time. I explain every step of the adventure in my video.

I'm asking all of you who have donated if you would like a full refund or if you would like that money to go to the legal fund for my documentary. I will be happy to refund you right away. Just drop me an email at [email protected]. I really appreciate all the support you have given me.

Mark

 

[Type4_PTS]

40 pages of people repeating themselves? Get a life, folks. There is another thread on the speakers. If you care about something other than flaming each other, go there.

Just for the record, I haven't flamed anyone here, and yes I do care about the speakers.

I attended live on the first two days of the conference and it was awesome.

Also I'll say that while I feel that this whole situation could have been handled better by the organizers, I'm very grateful to Laura for the work that she's done to make this happen.

I met her for the first time on Tuesday night and chatted with her briefly, and discovered that she's been protesting against the CoS in Clearwater since 2008! For that I admire her greatly as I know that the CoS has Fairgamed some of the Clearwater protesters, probably her as well given how long she's been at it.

If I'm able to be there on Saturday I will be protesting with her along with the other SP's.

 

[failboat]

So, you saw the post where it says no one but HIM would be in any legal danger, due to the injunction. See, there was nothing to worry about. This was taken care of 2 months ago.

Yes, and I already responded to this point in this thread, but you've forgotten. CommunicatorIC already addressed this in his post, and I already posted this in response to your comments about the police assurances.

To anticipate one possible response, the fact that Mark Bunker received assurances from the police is meaningless for two separate reasons. First, those assurances did not address the above scenario and concerns. Secondly, the police do not have the last word in this matter. Even if the police refuse to enforce an injunction because they believe the it is inapplicable and/or the conduct at issue is not in violation thereof, the COS can always independently serve someone with a Order to Show Cause that they are not in contempt of a court order (i.e., the injunction) and haul them into court. The final decision on whether someone is subject to the injunction and violated is not up to the police, but the Court.

 

[Purple Rain]

Just for the record, I haven't flamed anyone here, and yes I do care about the speakers.

I attended live on the first two days of the conference and it was awesome.

Also I'll say that while I feel that this whole situation could have been handled better by the organizers, I'm very grateful to Laura for the work that she's done to make this happen.

I met her for the first time on Tuesday night and chatted with her briefly, and discovered that she's been protesting against the CoS in Clearwater since 2008! For that I admire her greatly as I know that the CoS has Fairgamed some of the Clearwater protesters, probably her as well given how long she's been at it.

If I'm able to be there on Saturday I will be protesting with her along with the other SP's.

I agree. I really don't think that I've flamed anyone either. Sometimes I just feel like there's this pressure not to discuss something. I'm really uncomfortable with that. So glad that you enjoyed your time at the conference - I saw you there in the pictures. I agree that the talks have been great, and things like the tour bus lady and the Irish giving them curry were awesome also.

My ex has a lot of respect for AMA and sends her his best.

 

[RogerB]

I've just read the actual injunction, and the answer to the above question I asked is NO, I would not be in violation. Actually the COS members who came within 10 feet of ME would be in violation of the injunction.

http://www.lisamcpherson.org/images/perminj_text.pdf



Also, I see that I am not presently subject to the injunction or restricted by it as I haven't actually been served notice of it:

Hallelujah! An honest and smart man gets it!

As they say: "the truth (or the pen) is mightier than the sword" (I know "they" don't say that, but I thought is was good.)

I have found it very interesting that when folks have tried to helpfully point out the errors in some folks representations they have been attacked for it. What a shame . . .

Personally, I am against any misrepresentation or falsehood that grants or infers more power to the cult than it actually has.

I can well understand folks being gun-shy of the cult . . . I've been there, done that . . . but all that I've tried to point out has been the error in assuming and then asserting that the injunction has powers and affects it does not have.

Had there not been ill-will between Laura and Mark but instead a willingness to work together, I am sure we would have seen a very different series of events than has occurred . . . what a missed opportunity!

As I wrote, for a simple no cost trip to the Pinellas County Court as part of the planning to get a ruling on applying the injunction would have saved all the angst and this ill-will that further developed.

 

[i'mglib]

I've just read the actual injunction, and the answer to the above question I asked is NO, I would not be in violation. Actually the COS members who came within 10 feet of ME would be in violation of the injunction.

http://www.lisamcpherson.org/images/perminj_text.pdf



Also, I see that I am not presently subject to the injunction or restricted by it as I haven't actually been served notice of it:

Thank-you!

I was just about to point this out, as it has been completely overlooked.

Just to correct some misunderstandings, to be served notice of it, they have to first find your name, find you, have evidence of working in concert, get a legal copy, and get a process server to give it to you. It's not simply a matter of being at a conference with someone and the whole conference is served.

In addition, the church has blocked a whole bunch of streets downtown, including the areas where the named people can't protest. So EVEN IF you are named, on Saturday the protest won't take place in the off limits areas anyway.

 

[Purple Rain]

<--- snip

As I wrote, for a simple no cost trip to the Pinellas County Court as part of the planning to get a ruling on applying the injunction would have saved all the angst and this ill-will that further developed.

This! I love this! A simple no cost trip to get a ruling. I wouldn't have thought of it, but it's great to know for the future.

 

[Lermanet_com]

Before one picket we did in the 90's they literally put up scaffolding and tore up the entire sidewalk!!
(across the street from the Ft Harrison..) with a jackhammer...


+++++

Edit:

"The only thing that really works in $cientology are the lawyers"

 

[Type4_PTS]

Before one picket we did in the 90's they literally put up scaffolding and tore up the entire sidewalk!!
(across the street from the Ft Harrison..)

They use the First Amendment to the Constitution as a shield to protect the themselves from those who would hold them accountable for their abusive and criminal actions, but will go to extremes (such as in the example you pointed out) to prevent others from exercising THEIR First Amendment rights including free speech, and freedom of assembly.

They're only concerned about constitutional rights when it affects themselves, but routinely violate the rights of others.

We need more of these types of conferences such as Flagdown to make the general public aware of the true nature of this organization.