Flagdown 2014: media coverage, etc

[RogerB]

https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/flag-down-2014-derail-thread.114987/page-2#post-2389977

https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/flag-down-2014-derail-thread.114987/page-3#post-2391099

https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/flag-down-2014-derail-thread.114987/page-3#post-2390830

https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/flag-down-2014-derail-thread.114987/page-3#post-2391102

The LMT injunction was addressed well before the conference. It was publicly stated that anyone covered by the LMT injunction was not invited. My recollection is that these posts were originally in our first, main Flag Down 2014 thread, which became infested with OSA trolls. Many posts were moved to a derail thread. Both threads were frequented by trolls so often that they were both locked eventually.

Well, my Dear, that may be true on your WWP site . . . but I ain't seen it here: and all I can go on is what the injunction actually says and what has been posted here . . . . And I can tell you for free, I and I know a lot of ex-Scn types do not frequent WWP. I think going to the cited link below is likely the first time I've been there . . . is Bunker a visitor there?

But my question is, did she communicate it to Mark. Plugging stuff up on an internet forum is one thing: but actually courteously communicating concerns is quite another . . . even if the concerns are ill founded.

Umm, and I would say, not to be picky but to make a real point: being an ex who has seen his share of shit from the cult, I do have a close, heartfelt interest in these things . . . I am not some anonymous, arms length bystander.

This is something I have blood sweat and tears in, it's not just some sort of academic "fun thing to do" interest . . .

I clicked on the 1st of the above links . . .

No, but pretty much anyone with him is banned too. He could come but no one wishing to protest could be anywhere near him as I understand the injunction.​

The main issue with LMT parties is that Clearwater Anonymous has to actively fight to avoid being associated with them. If Scientology can paint us as being part of the same organization then they can work to have the injunction expanded to us. So I would be shocked and highly critical if AMA is considering bringing WBM to Clearwater for an anti-Scientology event. It would in all ways be a terrible idea.

EDIT: In fact, being caught up on the shit he's been doing lately, I'm going to go ahead and firmly state that Mark Bunker aka Wise Beard Man is not invited to this event and has nothing to do with this event and has nothing to do with the organizers of this event, who have never and will never work with him in any capacity.

And you can take that as an official statement on the subject from Clearwater Anonymous organizers, yes.​

How silly . . . umm, "Bring Bunker to Clearwater"??? He lives there doesn't he?

Personally, I see the above statement saying some silly things . . . it mentions, quote:
"He could come but no one wishing to protest could be anywhere near him as I understand the injunction."
Well, think it through . . . the "protest" that is planned is a very different event than and to the "conference" . . . . also the conference is in a totally different location to the protest and outside of the jurisdiction of the injunction . . . . you fellas have not really thought the exactitudes of this thing through. Now I see why you are defending the unfortunate behavior of Laura.

But it does not change the fact of the unfortunate, erroneous and irrational behavior.

As I see it, you characters are actually creating what the cult wants to have happen . . .

And for the record: I am in complete accord with you and your thinking that Mark B should be excluded from and "not allowed" to participate with your planned raid on cult HQ in downtown Clearwater . . . . for that is the action and defined venue the injunction applies to! And I am sure Mark is too smart to try to attend your planned raid on said premises for that is a violation by him of the injunction against him . . .

But to bar him from an open to the public conference in another town altogether shows an inability to think (or to think too bloody much and inaccurately) or some sort of small minded, petty little vindictive streak carried out because someone "doesn't like him" . . . as she is reported as having stated . . . she even said she has "the right to."

Gawd, I hate petty bickering among people who ostensibly have the same purposes . . . .


R

 

[failboat]

Well, my Dear, that may be true on your WWP site . . . but I ain't seen it here: and all I can go on is what the injunction actually says and what has been posted here . . . . And I can tell you for free, I and I know a lot of ex-Scn types do not frequent WWP. I think going to the cited link below is likely the first time I've been there . . . is Bunker a visitor there?

Yes

But my question is, did she communicate it to Mark.

Yes

How silly . . . umm, "Bring Bunker to Clearwater"??? He lives there doesn't he?

The post was made in November, 2013, before Bunker moved there. Please Do Your Homework.

Personally, I see the above statement saying some silly things . . . it mentions, quote:
"He could come but no one wishing to protest could be anywhere near him as I understand the injunction."
Well, think it through . . . the "protest" that is planned is a very different event than and to the "conference" . . . . also the conference is in a totally different location to the protest and outside of the jurisdiction of the injunction . . . . you fellas have not really thought the exactitudes of this thing through. Now I see why you are defending the unfortunate behavior of Laura.

If you're willing to pay for the legal fees that may result from allowing WBM to attend, please say so. If not, please don't try to interpret the legal document in a way that is favorable to your position. CoS will interpret it in a way that is favorable to THEIR position. And CoS has no compunctions about drawing people into frivolous court actions.

I snipped the rest of what you had to say, because you're still not getting it.

Offer to pay the potential legal fees that may result, and you're welcome to talk all the shit you want. If not, then you're not the one legally/financially at risk, and your opinion isn't as important as the opinion of the person who is.

 

[failboat]

I think this argumentation from CommunicatorIC, one who frequents both of our forums, bears repeating.

Laura's concern was and is that if she allowed Mark Bunker to attend the conference, and she or another person who had attended the conference later picketed in an area or in a way subject to the injunction, the COS would later assert in Court that Mark Bunker's permitted attendance at the conference showed that she or the other person who had attended the conference and later picketed was acting "in actual concert or participation" with Mark Bunker, and thus: (a) subject to the permanent injunction; (b) in violation of the permanent injunction; and (c) should be held in Contempt of Court

People here might think that concern is unreasonable. Then again, they aren't the one's who would be hauled into Court, have to litigate against the COS, face the risk of incurring substantial attorney's fees, and face a contempt citation. It wouldn't be Mark Bunker, or anyone here, who would be hauled into Court, forced to litigate against the COS, forced to incur substantial attorney's fees, or risk being held in contempt of Court.

I also don't see Mark Bunker, or anyone here, offering to pay Laura's attorney's fees in the above scenario, much less show they have the financial resources to do so.

Anyone who doesn't think the COS would try to use the Permanent Injunction as described above doesn't know what they are talking about.

The sad truth is that Mark Bunker and the other people named in the Permanent Injunction are radioactive to anyone who intends to picket in Clearwater in a zone or way subject to the injunction...

 

[RogerB]

Yes

Yes

The post was made in November, 2013, before Bunker moved there. Please Do Your Homework.

If you're willing to pay for the legal fees that may result from allowing WBM to attend, please say so. If not, please don't try to interpret the legal document in a way that is favorable to your position. CoS will interpret it in a way that is favorable to THEIR position. And CoS has no compunctions about drawing people into frivolous court actions.

I snipped the rest of what you had to say, because you're still not getting it.

Offer to pay the potential legal fees that may result, and you're welcome to talk all the shit you want. If not, then you're not the one legally/financially at risk, and your opinion isn't as important as the opinion of the person who is.

Now you are turning a little nasty, which is unfortunate as it debases your credibility.

I've been there, done that on the legal front.

Frankly, had the CofS acted based on Bumker's appearance in another town than the injunction applies to or can be applied to and at a public conference that in no way can be reasonably construed to be a violation of a prohibition of protesting outside the "church" premises . . . . I would go to court pro se (which means act for "oneself") I have done this on two occasions and won hands down.

The magic of pro se is a) Courts are very sympathetic to the individual and b) it cost nothing.

The simplicity of it is that the injunction has no basis nor effect outside of its defined limits. Add that to the constitutional rights attempted to be infringed by the cult, and their shit would be thrown out of Court. Certainly since one can demonstrate from Court records that the cult is a vexatious litigant prone to bringing spurious actions against its perceived enemies via misuse of the judicial system.

I can well understand folks' financial constraints . . . but with the application of some intelligence one can see what is correct and doable.

It's a shame all you guys who were gung ho for this adventure didn't speak to anyone who had a legal brain and get some precise advice instead of running a "know best" on yourselves.

But apart from that, all I am seeing here is someone has vented their ill will rather than looked at the actual truth of their rights and freedoms.

I am also seeing a conflating of two separate events/things . . . conference versus a separate protest/raid at a different location and at a different time.

R

 

[failboat]

Now you are turning a little nasty, which is unfortunate as it debases your credibility.

It wasn't nasty to describe Laura's behavior as silly, irrational, and erroneous? Or referring to us as "you characters"?

I've been there, done that on the legal front.

Frankly, had the CofS acted based on Bumker's appearance in another town than the injunction applies to or can be applied to and at a public conference that in no way can be reasonably construed to be a violation of a prohibition of protesting outside the "church" premises . . . . I would go to court pro se (which means act for "oneself") I have done this on two occasions and won hands down.

The magic of pro se is a) Courts are very sympathetic to the individual and b) it cost nothing.

That would be your decision if you were organizing and hosting a conference.

Unfortunately, you weren't organizing and hosting a conference, so it wasn't your decision. It was someone else's call to make and they made it, based on their own personal circumstances.

The simplicity of it is that the injunction has no basis nor effect outside of its defined limits. Add that to the constitutional rights attempted to be infringed by the cult, and their shit would be thrown out of Court. Certainly since one can demonstrate from Court records that the cult is a vexatious litigant prone to bringing spurious actions against its perceived enemies via misuse of the judicial system.

AMA is not a lawyer, and had a legal run-in that was an unpleasant experience for her. It is her decision and hers alone to make if she wants to avoid situations that could lead her back into court.

I can well understand folks' financial constraints . . . but with the application of some intelligence one can see what is correct and doable.

Once again, a "nasty" implication that intelligence was not applied. As a matter of fact, the Clearwater cell has debated this extensively and consulted with legal authorities on the matter.

It's a shame all you guys who were gung ho for this adventure didn't speak to anyone who had a legal brain and get some precise advice instead of running a "know best" on yourselves.

This "you guys" business isn't the least bit nasty, is it?

But apart from that, all I am seeing here is someone has vented their ill will rather than looked at the actual truth of their rights and freedoms.

I am also seeing a conflating of two separate events/things . . . conference versus a separate protest/raid at a different location and at a different time.

R

Read the first sentence of the CommunicatorIC quote above. It addresses the situation that you think is "conflating."

 

[failboat]

Frankly, had the CofS acted based on Bumker's appearance in another town than the injunction applies to or can be applied to and at a public conference that in no way can be reasonably construed to be a violation of a prohibition of protesting outside the "church" premises . . . . I would go to court pro se (which means act for "oneself") I have done this on two occasions and won hands down.

The magic of pro se is a) Courts are very sympathetic to the individual and b) it cost nothing.

The simplicity of it is that the injunction has no basis nor effect outside of its defined limits. Add that to the constitutional rights attempted to be infringed by the cult, and their shit would be thrown out of Court. Certainly since one can demonstrate from Court records that the cult is a vexatious litigant prone to bringing spurious actions against its perceived enemies via misuse of the judicial system.

BTW, I love how you're trying to put the burden of fighting the LMT injunction on AMA, so that WBM can attend the conference.

Shouldn't the onus of fighting the LMT injunction be on the members of the former LMT who are named by the LMT injunction?

Just sayin'

I love how no one here has intimated that maybe the burden should be on the members of the former LMT to get the injunction lifted before Clearwater Anons will associate with the LMT, at the conference or anywhere else.

 

[Axiom142]

I just watched the tapes from last evenings speakers. Russell Miller was very good. John Duignan was absolutely fantastic! His was the last talk of the evening. Well, well worth watching.

John was awesome!

He was angry and he spoke from the heart. With that kind of passion, anything can be achieved.

Axiom142

 

[Anonycat]

I think this argumentation from CommunicatorIC, one who frequents both of our forums, bears repeating.

As an event planner, it's obvious that a different venue is needed, where anyone may attend. Protests aside and apart from that, of course.

If I had a stated grudge against Mark or anyone, I'd be effing sure that my event planning could not in any way be seen as accommodating my own personal problems with any expected attendees, and events should be designed to accommodate any attendees.

What feels like is happening is we're seeing this grudge Laura has, going with the venue choice as an excuse. I'd never let this happen, as an event planner. It could be seen as self-serving, which must be avoided. I think that's what people are seeing -- Laura hates Mark, so eat it, Mark. You might get Laura in trouble by attending a conference venue.

No call-outs to cover Laura's legal, or to go make your own 5 day event are anything more than silly rhetoric. The two issues; hatred for Mark (or Indys) and a venue that can be used to enforce said hatred, are what people are trying to sort out for their own understanding.

During the time before the event, people are talking, because of a new attack campaign, with this event and Indys being the topic of attack. And I saw the attack trolls trying to spread hatred for those targets.

So let's see:

1) Forum posters/troll try to ruin this event in advance.

2) I'm being contacted by critics to discuss the attacks.

3) Meanwhile, the venue has been selected in an unfavorable location, and later Mark is singled out.

I have not seen an OG hate campaign since 2008, and I am really surprised that even 3 people could get behind it. Reading the comments at Tony's yesterday was an eye-opener.

Before the event, the trolling was saying not to go, because it was "pro-indy", in that they'd be allowed to attend.

So, that is the view into the past, for me. A bad choice of venue that supports division of critics, and maybe some pressure to be anti-someone/something. Pretending like it's all such a shame about the venue and dismissing the hatred by the person who booked it, is going to be problematic.

 

[AnonyMary]

AnonyMary---yes, I did and do support Flag Down 2014.
(Sorry if this is "tl;dr"...I suggest you deal w/ it and read it. In the past you have, to quote someone else,
"attacked you *(me) mercilessly". So spare me doing this again. I'm TRYING to sort this out for all.

I want to say s/t to you.

I believe in PEACE vs fighting, war, harm. I am *for* FLAG DOWN...the people who have worked hard
to get people there, and the speakers. I've loved listening to the speakers!

$cientology is famous for pushing fear
You say you're an Yet the Anons I know would *never* kick Mark Bunker out, giving over ALL power to
the CULT.

Oh I understand your thinking (and obviously I did not come as I know OSA and I was pretty sure
IF they could they would drag that old "Injunction" out and try to run it on all...and as I said, I didn't want to
be a part of that in any way. Mark LIVES in Clearwater, so he going was a bit natural.

However, AM: Please, please *never* forget our freedoms. Men, women, children, people of all ages have
stood up and fought and even died to protect the very freedoms we enjoy each day.

I see it as our responsibility to make sure these freedoms continue to be protected.

I get it: you knew $cientology *might* come after you due to "The Injunction".
Well, first off, that very "Injunction" ONLY relates to **picketing**....not a conference or ANY
other gathering, certainly NOT in Largo.

Secondly: Even IF they could "Serve" people due to Mark being there...that would ONLY BE AFTER
1) *IF* You all went picketing..it has *nothing* to do with conferences, get together 's, etc. It was designed due to a picket
we were having in honor of Lisa McPherson.
2)*IF* Legally it was decided that old Injunction of 2000 did have the same legal value that it did then. (which has NOT happened)
3) *IF* Someone picketed and then violated that injunction. ONLY THEN would there be any need for an attorney.

I get it. It's easier to just kick people out and move along. :confused2:
Mark Bunker has done more to expose this insidious CULT OF $CIENTOLOGY.......certainly more than most.

However....again....back to our freedoms:

They were NOT Picketing---which is ALL the "Injunction" is about.
and
Per the Injunction, even if we took the old one and tried to use it now: HOW?

It doesn't work.
Never forget the freedoms you are allowing the CRIMINAL CULT OF $CIENTOLOGY to take away
from others. THEY ARE WHY THIS IS HAPPENING *AT* *ALL*. They create fear
Run lies and get people to REACT, which you did. I just wanted to clarify this re "The Injunction"...
and OSA? FU. The "win" of Flag Down 2014 has and will continue and I can only suggest we all try to learn
from this mistake (as I see it).

To all at Flag Down 2014: Have a *great* time! Take photos, and stick together.
Let's let this go. There's nothing $cientology would like more than to have ALL the attention be on this,
vs the amazing stories shared by speakers, those who have attended, and the thousands of us supporting
it on-line.

To all:

My best to all,

Tory/Magoo

Re: the enlarged part on down...Are you talking to me or amaX ( Laura Flynn) ?

I ask because I have never attacked you. Just trying to understand here

 

[elwood]

Witih regard to Mark Bunker your argument is without merit. That was and is not Laura's concern with regard to the injunction and Mark Bunker's attendance at the conferrence.

The Permanent Injunction provides in relevant part:

Laura's concern was and is that if she allowed Mark Bunker to attend the conference, and she or another person who had attended the conference later picketed in a area or in a way subject to the injunction, the COS would later asset in Court that Mark Bunker's permitted attendance at the conference showed that she or the other person who had attended the conference and later picketed was acting "in actual concert or participation" with Mark Bunker, and thus: (a) subject to the permanent injunction; (b) in violation of the permanent injunction; and (c) should be held in Contempt of Court

People here might think that concern is unreasonable. Then again, they aren't the one's who would be hauled into Court, have to litigate against the COS, face the risk of incurring substantial attorney's fees, and face a contempt citation. It wouldn't be Mark Bunker, or anyone here, who would be hauled into Court, forced to litigate against the COS, forced to incur substantial attorney's fees, or risk being held in contempt of Court.

I also don't see Mark Bunker, or anyone here, offering to pay Laura's attorney's fees in the above scenario, much less show they have the financial resources to do so.

Anyone who doesn't think the COS would try to use the Permanent Injunction as described above doesn't know what they are talking about.

The sad truth is that Mark Bunker and the other people named in the Permanent Injunction are radioactive to anyone who intends to picket in Clearwater in a zone or way subject to the injunction.

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.

Yes, the event was generally open to the public. That doesn't mean the event organizers can't exclude certain persons. For example, the event organizer's could exclude OSA agents, PIs, etc.

Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in Mark Bunker. He knew he was not welcome at the conference. The reasons for excluding him, articulated above, were and are not frivolous. Nonetheless, he just had to show up, make himself the issue, cause a big mess and, as the Anons would say, ego fag.

Whether Laura used this logic to exclude Mark or not, it's a darn good point and one I picked up on when I read the injunction. Probably the same logic the cult used on Lonsdale. BTW, for those who think the injunction can be avoided by moving the conference out of Clearwater; the injunction specifically states that it applies in all the counties in Florida.

 

[TrevAnon]

Laura Flynn, wasn't she on Twin Peaks back in the 80's

That would be Lara [not Laura] Flynn Boyle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Hayward

Back then I had a major crush on her.

 

[Anonycat]

Whether Laura used this logic to exclude Mark or not, it's a darn good point and one I picked up on when I read the injunction. Probably the same logic the cult used on Lonsdale. BTW, for those who think the injunction can be avoided by moving the conference out of Clearwater; the injunction specifically states that it applies in all the counties in Florida.

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

 

[Magoo]

Re: the enlarged part on down...Are you talking to me or amaX ( Laura Flynn) ?

I ask because I have never attacked you. Just trying to understand here

DOH! So sorry, AnonyMary. I thought it would be obvious I was speaking to Laura...as she is the one
who made this very serious decision, not you. (Laura used to use the nick AnonyMom2..I believe, also, and AMEX now, thus "AM")

May the record note this, please.

I've appreciated your support and posts over the years, AnonyMary



Tory/Magoo

 

[failboat]

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

CommunicatorIC also addressed this in his great post.

...
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...

 

[bromo]

After reading all over about this for the past couple of days the following are my main thoughts pertaining to this

1. Is there some sort of legal issue here when requesting donations from the public at large for a conference declared in the advertising as "free and open to the public" when it was not truly open to the public from what I have gathered? Not only were the two who were asked to leave not allowed there, but others had it made known that they would not be allowed. I could be mistaken, having read so much, but did Smurf not say he was also told he would not be welcome? Were others who were not a part of the injunction also told they would not be welcome?

2. If this was an Anonymous sponsored function why was that not made public knowledge? I saw nothing here or on the videos or other promotional outlets when links were provided that stated this. From everyting I saw and read about this event, I had assumed that it was a group of like minded people,including exes, coming together to put this on.

3. And most important of all, at least to me, why is there so much animosity from people who say they have the same goal? As someone who is a never in who has learned about the evils of cos, had I not already had knowledge of the cult, this woilx be a giant red flag to me. If those who are active in the common goal of shutting the cult down want the general public to support them and understand the dangers of ghe cult then the fighting, name calling and arguments in the public arena need to subside. It puts a face on those taking part in it that will cause those general public to turn away and not stand with them calling on the powers that be to put an end to the practices and legality of the cult.

Just my 3 cents.

 

[Anonycat]

CommunicatorIC also addressed this in his great post.

Then you move the event. It's not very complicated.

 

[failboat]

Then you move the event. It's not very complicated.

Entirely out of the state of Florida?

Whether Laura used this logic to exclude Mark or not, it's a darn good point and one I picked up on when I read the injunction. Probably the same logic the cult used on Lonsdale. BTW, for those who think the injunction can be avoided by moving the conference out of Clearwater; the injunction specifically states that it applies in all the counties in Florida.

 

[Anonycat]

Entirely out of the state of Florida?

If I were planning the event and was concerned about the LMT issue, yes, of course.

Also, you don't really support an idea that includes taking donations from people who will be later told they are barred from the event, do you? I don't think Laura is going to brush this off so easily.

I feel bad for Pete, I don't think he saw all this coming at all.

 

[chipgallo]

What if you combined live attendees with virtual ones? Like Dick Clark does (did) with New Years celebrations in various cities. Nowadays a person can attend via Smartphone, computer desktop, laptop and so on. One would need a conference room with decent internet connections and a large screen to show the remote attendees or speakers on as they presented. GoToMeeting, WebEx and the like can be used to show dox, photos, video and other evidence as necessary. You can have voice over IP or phone bridges for the audio.

You could even have convicted ex-Scn attend from prison

 

[AnonyMary]

DOH! So sorry, AnonyMary. I thought it would be obvious I was speaking to Laura...as she is the one
who made this very serious decision, not you. (Laura used to use the nick AnonyMom2..I believe, also, and AMEX now, thus "AM")

May the record note this, please.

I've appreciated your support and posts over the years, AnonyMary



Tory/Magoo

I'm a bit on the dull side these days.... sorry I didn't get it at first!