Flagdown 2014: media coverage, etc

[Purple Rain]

No, I'm eager to get you an answer to your question, which is basically the opposite of shutting you up. I have suggested several times that you ask your question to the person to whom you wish to ask your question, which would require you to speak up. I even provided contact information.

I do agree with you that there has been enough unpleasantness already.

Yes, I do appreciate the contact details, thank you. I would also say that I know what it's like to put a lot of your own money and time into organising an event, and I am sure that nobody is more disappointed than the organiser herself. But aside from that, I'll keep out of it. I do feel for the attendees and speakers and hope that the rest of the event is a roaring success.

 

[Anonycat]

Well, the official website states that:



I would have thought that would have sufficed. Is it a public conference or not? Is there some fine print that I need to talk to the organiser about? She is the one advertising a public conference yet treating it like a private party.

I would certainly have cared more if I'd decided to go. And I have to be honest - I'm glad I did not.

I see now, that this thing with Laura Flynn has been going on for a while. That's mostly all I know about it.


From Tom Smith:

“I talked to Laura about a month ago, and she said she didn’t want Bunker there. I asked why, and she said she just doesn’t like him.”

From Mark Bunker:

I had planned to stay away because I’d been hearing for months how much this woman hates me but there are any number of reasons why random people can hate me so that doesn’t surprise me.

http://tonyortega.org/2014/05/05/flag-down-drama-mark-bunker-kicked-out-by-conference-organizer/

 

[TG1]

Move along. Right. Got it.

Purple, if you really want actual dox / information that's where there's a lot more of it than there is here.

 

[TG1]

That's funny! I started typing the same Q. WTF is she? I never heard of her, either.

There's this concept called "Anonymous."

It means: "(a person) not identified by name"

 

[Anonycat]

[video=youtube;BNAeZsvkPnY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNAeZsvkPnY[/video]

 

[Purple Rain]

Purple, if you really want actual dox / information that's where there's a lot more of it than there is here.

All I want to know is which members of the public are and are not permitted entry and on what basis. If there is a link to that information on WWP I will gladly read it, but it seems the only person who can answer that is the organiser. Tory can't go. Smurf can't go. Tom Smith can't go. Yet it is a public event? So maybe I will email the organiser and let her know I will pass on the information for the benefit of others.

 

[TG1]

Purple,

I was really trying NOT to have to type this here. That's why I referred you to WWP. It's not a simple issue that's at debate here. But very briefly (and therefore probably inadequately) here's the major issue:

People involved in this dispute about whether Bunker should or should not attend Flag Down all have some rational basis (and probably also some irrational, very personal bases) for their conflicting positions.

The rational basis for their disagreements are disagreements about the interpretation of a 13-year-old (ordered in 2001) permanent injunction against protesting against the Church of Scientology in Clearwater. This permanent injunction is very broadly and vaguely worded and will be in force indefinitely (with no end date) against eight specific people, two of whom are Mark Bunker and Tory Bezazian [Christman].

However, here's another little wrinkle about the permanent injunction: It also bars "... officers, agents, servants, employees and persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction." Yesterday morning, the church had a copy of this permanent injunction delivered to the home of the Clearwater anon organizer of Flag Down.

Here's the 2001 permanent injunction for your reading pleasure:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/205666116/Permanent-Injunction-against-the-Lisa-McPherson-Trust

But, as many people are saying, Flag Down is not protesting. It's a conference. So why bar Bunker from attending?

Because Bunker's violation (or not) of the injunction by attending Flag Down events wouldn't stop the cult from complaining against the Clearwater anon who's organizing Flag Down. She would then have to hire a lawyer and fight that battle in court. And she doesn't have the kind of money to finance that kind of legal battle. That's essentially why she doesn't want Bunker at the conference -- to protect herself and other Clearwater anons and other Flag Down attendees from legal harassment by the cult.

There is very understandable debate about the validity of this injunction to stop anyone from associating with Bunker at Flag Down. And yes, although IANAL, I don't think the injunction is valid to keep anyone from associating with Bunker at the Flag Down Conference.

However, several years ago, the cult already had this very same Clearwater anon Flag Down organizer arrested and charged in connection with her protests at Flag at that time. It was apparently a very unpleasant and expensive experience for her, and she doesn't want to repeat that awful experience. Apparently, she is now (as they say) erring on the side of caution.

And just to prove that the cult will use their old LMT permanent injunction to charge people who have no direct association with the LMT and weren't named in the injunction, have you ever heard of Shawn Lonsdale? If not, look him up. From Wikipedia: "Lonsdale was subpoenaed by the Church of Scientology in 2006, and they accused him of being affiliated with the Lisa McPherson Trust, a group critical of Scientology which was restricted in where it could protest in Clearwater." There's more.

In short, although I certainly wish the Clearwater anon who's organizing the Flag Down conference had better public-facing skills, I can at least (while putting myself in her shoes) understand her concerns.

It's not a simple situation.

I'm not typing anything else in this thread. If anyone wants to learn more -- please go over to WWP and do your own homework.

TG1

 

[FlunkYou]

Someone else voiced it earlier, but it's good to see opposing views being voiced without fear of big brother (ethics). Rock on free speech!!!!

 

[Veda]

No, I said WBM was turned away for legal reasons, not personal ones. I don't know why Tom Smith was turned away, and I don't really care. You're the one who does - let's stay clear on that - so that's why I told you to ask

This is odd.

So it's not true that the organizer of the event "hates and/or doesn't like Mark Bunker"?

And also, apparently, doesn't like Tom Smith?

There's no permanent injunction on Tom Smith, or was there concern that he'd be regarded as an agent of Mark Bunker? Or does the organizer of this event just not like either of them?

And, if so, then why? I mean - how does one not like Wise Beard Man?

And why have an event, apparently defiantly, in a place which Scientology has been infiltrating - with varying degrees of success - for the last 39 years? if one is that nervous about Scientology Inc. behaving like Scientology Inc.?

[video=youtube;XW8eTe_Ank8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW8eTe_Ank8#t=640[/video]
Video from 14 years ago, concerning Clearwater then, and 25 years before, when Scientology invaded Clearwater under the guise of United Churches.​

Suggestion: Next time, have the event close by, but outside of the jurisdiction of the outrageous permanent injunction. That way, attendees can, after the event, go sightseeing, etc., in Clearwater itself, and everyone can attend the event.

 

[i'mglib]

Purple,
...
And just to prove that the cult will use their old LMT permanent injunction to charge people who have no direct association with the LMT and weren't named in the injunction, have you ever heard of Shawn Lonsdale? If not, look him up. From Wikipedia: "Lonsdale was subpoenaed by the Church of Scientology in 2006, and they accused him of being affiliated with the Lisa McPherson Trust, a group critical of Scientology which was restricted in where it could protest in Clearwater." There's more.
...
TG1

Shawn Lonsdale was a completely different kettle of fish. Shawn protested and filmed everyday for months. He stood in front of a Starbucks a couple blocks from Flag holding signs and filming for hours. He also filmed some of their events, such as their Easter event. The church hated him. They wanted to get rid of him. It wasn't simply a matter of him having coffee one day with someone, and the next day he has cops at his door. They went after him, they dug into his personal life, they went to his house, they messed with his employment. To use him as an example of what could happen to people at a peaceful, lawful event miles away from the church where someone like Mark Bunker shows up isn't reasonable.

I think you're right that people should go to WWP to see who was and wasn't "invited." Some beloved critics with no injunction against them would have been likewise blocked from attending.

 

[Lermanet_com]

Here is a depo of a kid who later supposedly committed suicide..

Seems this started with a person named in the LMT injunction buying the kid lunch
and after suggesting they sit outside, in Florida, in July, across from the south end of the Ft Homicide building, handed the kid a hundred dollar bill..to help 'defray video editing expenses' thus providing color of law to be subpeona'd under that LMT injunction by $cientology, which he was a few days later which resulted in this deposition:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA
CASE N0: 99-7430-CI-08
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG COPY
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.
Plaintiff
vs
LISA McPHERSON TRUST, INC.
a Florida for-profit corporation,
ET AL
Defendants
VIDEO DEPOSITION
DEPONENT: SHAWN LONSDALE
DATE: JULY 19, 2006
10:00 A.M. - 1:59 P.M.
LOCATION: D & D REPORTING SERVICE
915 CHESTNUT STREET
CLEARWATER, FL
REPORTER: DENISE ANN HERROLD
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF FLORIDA AT LARGE

There is no mention of this deposition, nor the incident described above that started it all in his wiki page.

It was Shawn's death that moved me to begin study of a topic I detested... called Hypnosis,My studies of hypnosis and covert hypnosis were inspired by Shawn Lonsdale's death you see, I now HAD to learn how how the trick had been done.

=======


The following words come from a publication called Pseudodoxia Epidemica, written by Sir Thomas Browne in 1646. In between paragraphs ridiculing urine therapy and astrology (both unfortunately still with us), he had this to say about "Saltimbancoes, Quacksalvers, and Charlatans":

For their Impostures are full of cruelty, and worse than any other; deluding not only unto pecuniary defraudations, but the irreparable deceit of death.

 

[Veda]

Shawn Lonsdale was a completely different kettle of fish. Shawn protested and filmed everyday for months. He stood in front of a Starbucks a couple blocks from Flag holding signs and filming for hours. He also filmed some of their events, such as their Easter event. The church hated him. They wanted to get rid of him. It wasn't simply a matter of him having coffee one day with someone, and the next day he has cops at his door. They went after him, they dug into his personal life, they went to his house, they messed with his employment. To use him as an example of what could happen to people at a peaceful, lawful event miles away from the church where someone like Mark Bunker shows up isn't reasonable.

I think you're right that people should go to WWP to see who was and wasn't "invited." Some beloved critics with no injunction against them would have been likewise blocked from attending.

Now, I'm really curious. Who else, without an injunction against them, would have been blocked from attending?

It's one thing for the organizer to say, that such and such is not welcome to speak, but to block attendance?

That's more oddity.

Wuzzup?

 

[Smurf]

Probably because of the person with whom he arrived.

Guilt by association, much? You should be working on the cult PR team.. they love explaining way bad behavior, too.

As for the utter nonsense that planning an event or protesting in Clearwater is any different than anywhere else (especially here in LA).. keep on playing the denial & blame game. You & Laura Flynn are so good at it.

Here's video of Tom Smith getting the boot. Notice Laura backing up & allowing the cop to do her dirty work. What a c*nt.

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

 

[Smurf]

No, I said WBM was turned away for legal reasons, not personal ones. I don't know why Tom Smith was turned away, and I don't really care. You're the one who does - let's stay clear on that - so that's why I told you to ask

Legal reasons, my ass. Are you a lawyer or paralegal? Any legal training at all on how to interpret court rulings? Laura (AMA) has made it quite clear in her comments before & after Mark was ordered from the event that she did not like Mark & did not want him there. She also banned Tom Smith because he was there with Mark. The injunction dealt only with Mark's protesting at Scientology properties in Pinellas County.

If you're going to "speculate" and claim Tom's banishment was "guilt by association", then you should do a screening of all the attendees of the Flag Down event. If any one them supports Mark Bunker or contributed to his videos, they should be immediately banned from the event. too.

If Laura had an ounce of integrity, she's apologize to Mark & be accountable for her bad behavior instead of blaming the backlash on "Bunker and the Bunkerites" (her words.)

 

[failboat]

I wasn't talking to you, Smurf. I wasn't blaming anyone, either, but if you want to change the narrative and say that I was, go ahead.

I don't see you hosting any 5-day anti-Scientology conferences in SoCal, either.

 

[i'mglib]

Now, I'm really curious. Who else, without an injunction against them, would have been blocked from attending?

It's one thing for the organizer to say, that such and such is not welcome to speak, but to block attendance?

That's more oddity.

Wuzzup?

Anyone labeled an Indie.

Who is an Indie? It sounded completely capricious and arbitrary. Geir is there, so apparently he doesn't count. Many people who were indies, and have now renounced, I get the feeling wouldn't be welcome. Much discussion occurred about how to oust these people if they dared to show up.

Kinda weird because we actually had Scientologists at our press conference in LA.

 

[Smurf]

I wasn't talking to you, Smurf. I wasn't blaming anyone, either, but if you want to change the narrative and say that I was, go ahead. I don't see you hosting any 5-day anti-Scientology conferences in SoCal, either.

You mean the 5-day anti-Scientology conference that I, and others contributed funding for, that were told by Laura we were not invited?? Yeah, that speaks volumes for the "host".

If Flag Down has a 2nd event, there clearly needs to be a new organizer that is not a legend in his/her own mind & see's the event as his/her personal property. Many critics (and speakers) backed out of this year's event because of your beloved host's actions.

 

[Veda]

Anyone labeled an Indie.

Who is an Indie? It sounded completely capricious and arbitrary. Geir is there, so apparently he doesn't count. Many people who were indies, and have now renounced, I get the feeling wouldn't be welcome. Much discussion occurred about how to oust these people if they dared to show up.

Kinda weird because we actually had Scientologists at our press conference in LA.

So I'm sure I understand what you're saying - You mean block certain people from attending, as in simply being in the audience?

If so, then that's crazy.


Is there a video of the press conference to which you refer above?

Thanks.

 

[In present time]

wow, almost off topic at this point. but is there a live stream today?

 

[In present time]

this ama person is NOT an anon. that is my opinion and i am sticking to it. she isn't playing by the anon rules, which are NONE.