Angry Gay Pope Arraignment #1 - Post-game details

AngryGayPope

Patron with Honors
May 6, 2009 Murietta Courthouse, Murietta CA

NOTE: Docs can't be posted here due to confidentiality. Read the docs in searchable PDF form at my website Angry Gay Pope Home Page. Click on "Police Report"

My lawyer Graham Berry and I went down to the ultramodern courthouse to get a legal extension on my pansy pleading. On the wall inside are flat screens showing your name and the courtroom to go to. I had to be there by 8 AM to watch the mandatory training film in two languages. Present for the prosecution were crusty old gravel voiced lawyer Elliot Abelson and Cult HQ leader Catherine Fraser. Assisting them was a nicely dressed woman in her twenties, the court appointed District Attorney. By law it is the people vs. me and so she is helping the people aka the cultists and Abelson, their most ancient lawyer.

So the judge calls us up and asks if I am ready to plead guilty, not guilty or no contest (which is like guilty). My lawyer Graham asked to have this event, the pleading, rescheduled to a later date. Abelson wanted me to be be banned from protesting at Gold and restrained from going near Catherine Fraser, aka the "victim," a women who can arrest at will! Immediately the case began to be argued even though this meeting was technically to schedule a schedule to plead! Graham argued my rights to free speech were violated and that were aggressively in the board of Supers (below) face on this issue.

The judge said he didn't know just was this was about but could guess based on recent activity. He asked the DA lady to talk to both sides outside and see if a compromise could be reached and moved on to the lawyer for the next case, a rather Jewish looking guy. Can you wrap your mind around that idea? A Jewish lawyer??! He said "I apologize for my case not being as interesting at that last one. It is very complicated and boring." Everyone laughed and the judge added, smiling "That's okay I like your case just fine too."

We all went outside. While I took a leak Graham accused the DA lady of corruption because she was trying to get me banned from protesting at Gold Base in Hemet where the Pansy Stomping Incident (PSI) took place. She was offended and went to get a second more senior DA. I came back to find nothing going on except Abelson staring at Graham from down the hall. We watched the swallows that live in the eaves of the windows make nests out of mud lumps for a while. It was relaxing. Then the lady DA came back with a tall, dark haired thirtysomething male DA. Graham and I told them there was no reason for me to be banned from Gold Base as I had been there once already with no incident. He said they were trying to take away my civil rights and that Scientology was dangerous.

LADY DA: Dangerous? They are dangerous? Why should I believe you? Frankly, I'm a little offended you accused me of corruption just for doing my job, relaying what the people bringing charges want. I don't care about any religion. And I don't care about Scientology. I have over 150 cases on my desk and am really overworked. Let's just get this over with.

GRAHAM BERRY: But Scientology committed the largest act of infiltration against the US government in it's history!

LADY DA: I don't believe you.

MAN DA: You are taking this way to seriously and blowing up this misdemeanor act way out of proportion. We don't have time for this.

GRAHAM BERRY: But all these cases are linked and you'll be seeing more of us in the future and Scientology gets a lot of attention with the board of supers ....etc. etc.

LADY DA: I don't care. So do you are don't you agree to terms with them?

AGP: Tell the judge it's a stalemate.

I could see both sides but either way my goal was achieved, the DA's were enturbulated by Scientology and had their time wasted. It was good Graham met them and began talking. It will help protester AnonOrange in his beating trial in June. Later my lawyer complained that it was always an uphill battle educating DA's and judges about Scientology because the stories are often so incredible, but true, that people don't believe him. "I'll ask her in a few months if she still knows nothing about the cult and we'll see if she changes her mind" grinned Graham.

We went back in and I scanned some legal documents I was given. I was astounded that the cult got a plant damage estimate of almost $3,000 from a local landscaper. According to this place a 6" pansy plant cost $3.85 and a 4" snapdragon was almost fifteen dollars! They also appeared to be replacing the entire bed of over 300 plants on both sides of the driveway and charging $1,380 to replant them. That's almost five dollars to plant one tiny flower! I only stepped on half the flowers, as the officer noted in the police report. This was about 100-125 plants. I also read Catherine Fraser's letter to the police in which she introduces as evidence the security video of my actions. "The highlights might be faster to watch as there was over 45 minutes of Mr. Meyers (sic) in the flower beds" she helpfully noted.

Soon we were called up before the judge again. Cult lawyer Abelson said, in a smokers' voice so raspy you could almost hear the polyps bumping around in his throat, that I was a danger to the victim, Catherine Fraser, sitting in the audience. Then they started pre-arguing the case again and the judge had to take the time to read the police report. Graham got the pleading rescheduled for July. The judge started offering suggested distances away I could stay and didn't have a map. He said details could be worked out or modified later so he told me to have no contact with Catherine Fraser and stay away from Gold Base. Doing this is of course incredibly easy since she lives two hours away! I'm also not planning to protest at Gold until the fall when the desert cools. Graham put up a fight about it anyway and successfully wasted more of the court's time on this Scientology nonsense. Then it was over until AnonOrange's trial here in June so we left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IVfRfXl1z0
 

skydog

Patron Meritorious
I am LMFAO. The last thing the DA wants is to be stuck between two private parties involved in a pissing contest. You enturbulated the DA. That is just too bad for them. As a public servant, they have an ethical obligation to ensure that justice is done, not parrot the requests of some 'irate victim'.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Congratulations AGP, sounds like you and Graham are doing a great job in all respects. As to the corruptibility of the Riverside County DA's office:

rivda03.gif


Zinj
 

ARC

Patron
Saying that you're doing this to waste the court's time is not a good idea, IMO. Wasting Scientology's time, maybe, but not the court.
 

AnonOrange

Gold Meritorious Patron
We're all behind you on this Pope (at least a few feet back anyways).

I sincerely believe any time we can bring the cult to the court room, we win in so many ways. First, we have the discovery that can lead us to some nuggets of new info, often incriminating and the mere fact of having Abelson & Moxon dragged to court to fight for his panzies, having to suffer hours of accusations of gay bashing, public land encroachement, etc. is great for the cause. You gotta love it!

Winning the Panzy trial would be just great. The fun and lulz of it all make it worthwhile.

Please be sure to attend his trial. Should be lots of fun.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
You're either naive or silly. 'Discovery' is based on how much money you have. BFG's 'deposition' is an example of the kind of 'discovery' that Scientology can buy. What do you think the odds are that you can get Davey into 'deposition'?

Bear in mind, I *know* people who managed it. But, the courts are the home field for Co$. They even have Scientologist *judges*.

Zinj
 

AnonOrange

Gold Meritorious Patron
You're either naive or silly. 'Discovery' is based on how much money you have. BFG's 'deposition' is an example of the kind of 'discovery' that Scientology can buy. What do you think the odds are that you can get Davey into 'deposition'?

Bear in mind, I *know* people who managed it. But, the courts are the home field for Co$. They even have Scientologist *judges*.

Zinj

Yes, there is expense involved. For example, simply taping the deposition costs $2,000 per day.

Let me just say that scientology did not make a good investment in their latest discovery. Sometimes, these things backfire.

If you lead a clean life, would you not pay that amout to see DM getting grilled for eight hours by Graham & Von Sickle ?

This could happen shortly !
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Let me know when you get into a poker game with Davey. If you have a couple of million to throw at a problem (they do) then your $20 won't buy you much justice.

I hope you're watching your own case AO; seriously. You seem a little light on the concept of 'legal system'.

Zinj
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
If you lead a clean life, would you not pay that amout to see DM getting grilled for eight hours by Graham & Von Sickle ?

Davey *was* deposed by Graham. Very enlightenly so. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

Zinj
 

AnonOrange

Gold Meritorious Patron
Davey *was* deposed by Graham. Very enlightenly so. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance.

Zinj

Yes I know that, but that was decades ago. Graham has accumulated a lot of knowledge since then. He can ask questions for which he knows the answer all day long.
 

skydog

Patron Meritorious
There does seem to be some confusion about what is going on based on the various posts here. This is a criminal case wherein the People of the State of California are accusing our Angry Pope (who happens to be Gay) of committing crimes (probably trespass and criminal mischief). The Co$ is the 'victim' in this case and while they have some rights in this matter, it is clearly not their game. The home court team in this case is the district attorney-they are the ones that are calling the shots and will decide when to end this game. If, as has been suggested, members of the DA's office are the puppets of the Co$, then they (the DA, not the church) remain responsible for the outcome of this lawsuit.

While it is not my intention to prejudge the facts of this case, it is hard for me to conclude that the DA's office is acting improperly here. By law, they are required to take into account the position of any 'victim' to a crime. By law, they are required to prosecute violations of the penal code. The video shows AGP stepping on the pansies. Did these pansies belong to AGP? Did his actions damage tangible property? What was the fair market value of the pansies he did damage? Was he on private property when he did so? These are the questions that are the subject of this lawsuit.

The fact that the 'victim' is an asshole is not a legal defense to a crime.
 

AnonOrange

Gold Meritorious Patron
There does seem to be some confusion about what is going on based on the various posts here. This is a criminal case wherein the People of the State of California are accusing our Angry Pope (who happens to be Gay) of committing crimes (probably trespass and criminal mischief).

Two things I need to correct:

1) The area he stepped is absolutely public property. Pope saw my maps before going there. He also yells out to the guards "This is Pulbic property".

2) "happens to be Gay" does not describe him well.
 

skydog

Patron Meritorious
Anon Orange-legally, for the purposes of criminal mischief, it doesn't matter if the pansies were on private property or not. The crime is committed when one damages the property of 'another'; the identity of the owner (as long as it is not the defendant ) is not an issue.

I do question whether AGP damaged any property in this case. The video shows him stepping on flowers. Flowers are not that fragile that they cannot survive being stepped on every now and then. Even if the $cions replaced them, it would still be required to show that these flowers were damaged and needed to be replaced. Legally, because they are under no obligation to replace these flowers, they would not be entitled to an order of restitution. The public, as the victim, can be grateful for the officious intermeddling of the $cions.

This case is a prosecutor's nightmare. It is a completely bullshit case between two private parties involving relatively minor, if any, damage to property. They have been placed in the middle of a pissing contest between two parties with irretractable positions and will be pissed on no matter how this plays out.

Unfortunately, the path of least resistance is to absolve themselves of responsibilty and let the jury decide this one.
 

AnonOrange

Gold Meritorious Patron
This case is a prosecutor's nightmare. It is a completely bullshit case between two private parties involving relatively minor, if any, damage to property. They have been placed in the middle of a pissing contest between two parties with irretractable positions and will be pissed on no matter how this plays out.

You got that right ! The DA was puzzled and somewhat upset at AGP's plea of not guilty. I think she knows what's coming.

I wish we can make this the circuis that this case deserves. At least we were dressed in purple for the arraignment, but I'd love to see a busload of purple gay guys at the trial.

I actually think we have a strong case, based on some documents I sent to the Pope recently.
 

Been Done Had

Patron with Honors
This is an interesting case. Pope handed them the "intent" part of the statute. If he had just walked back and forth over the pansies, there would likely be no case.

The case hinges on whether the pansies are actually CofS property. By planting them on public property, are the pansies not then considered "abandoned?" The county/state could remove them at any time with no compensation to the CofS.

There has to be some California caselaw about this very issue. The destruction of private landscaping on public lands.

To win this the DA has to prove the pansies are CofS legal property. If Pope goes down for this, there is likely a slam dunk on appeal.
 

Been Done Had

Patron with Honors
Okay, having done a little research, if the CofS has an encroachment permit for the improvements on the easement, then Pope may be paying for pansies.

If there is no permit, well, it's still Riverside folks.

Blindly charging in and destroying the flowers was pretty boneheaded. He should have checked the County of Riverside Transportation Department's permit records first!

Maybe someone could pull Golden Era's transpo department permits and see what encroachment has been allowed...

(hint hint AO)
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Let me know when you get into a poker game with Davey. If you have a couple of million to throw at a problem (they do) then your $20 won't buy you much justice.

I hope you're watching your own case AO; seriously. You seem a little light on the concept of 'legal system'.

Zinj

Zinjmeister....you are sounding like me!
 

skydog

Patron Meritorious
This is an interesting case. Pope handed them the "intent" part of the statute. If he had just walked back and forth over the pansies, there would likely be no case.

The case hinges on whether the pansies are actually CofS property. By planting them on public property, are the pansies not then considered "abandoned?" The county/state could remove them at any time with no compensation to the CofS.

There has to be some California caselaw about this very issue. The destruction of private landscaping on public lands.

To win this the DA has to prove the pansies are CofS legal property. If Pope goes down for this, there is likely a slam dunk on appeal.

I am not sure this case hinges on whether the acts took place on private or public property. The applicable statute appears to be California Penal Code, Sec. 594-625c which criminalizes "malicious mischief". The defendant must act with 'malice', i.e., the conduct must be intentional or reckless. The damaged property must belong to a person other than the defendant-in this case the municipality. In this case, the state would have to prove that AGP maliciously 'damaged' or 'destroyed' pansies that did not belong to him.

If the act occurred on public property, the Co$ would not be 'victims' and have no say in the proceedings. Hopefully the prosecutor will use that fact to as an excuse to tell the $cions to fuck off. If the 'irate victim' can be legally ignored, there will be far less resistance to dumping this piece of shit case.

There is no such thing as a 'slam dunk' appeal. If the prosecutors can sell this case to a judge and jury and obtain a conviction, the chances of it being overturned on appeal are about 20-30% at best. AGP and Anon Orange want to win at trial; the state cannot appeal an acquittal.
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I am not sure this case hinges on whether the acts took place on private or public property. The applicable statute appears to be California Penal Code, Sec. 594-625c which criminalizes "malicious mischief". The defendant must act with 'malice', i.e., the conduct must be intentional or reckless. The damaged property must belong to a person other than the defendant-in this case the municipality. In this case, the state would have to prove that AGP maliciously 'damaged' or 'destroyed' pansies that did not belong to him.

If the act occurred on public property, the Co$ would not be 'victims' and have no say in the proceedings. Hopefully the prosecutor will use that fact to as an excuse to tell the $cions to fuck off. If the 'irate victim' can be legally ignored, there will be far less resistance to dumping this piece of shit case.

There is no such thing as a 'slam dunk' appeal. If the prosecutors can sell this case to a judge and jury and obtain a conviction, the chances of it being overturned on appeal are about 20-30% at best. AGP and Anon Orange want to win at trial; the state cannot appeal an acquittal.

Nice to see someone who understands the law and its practice.

I am always aghast at the folks who create their own legal train wrecks, thinking that they can bring a host of other issues to simple matters like a trespass or such.

Henson famously, AnonOrange and AngryGayPope recently.

Its an expensive soap box that easily collapses.

(whoops mixed my metaphors....)
 
Last edited:
Top