Flagdown 2014: media coverage, etc

[Anonycat]

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

7:00 PM local time. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/flag-down-2014

 

[AnonyMary]

It's obvious that Tom and Mark knew they were not wanted at the event long before the event began. It's clear from the below statements that it was discussed. The reasons being the injunction potential for endangering others and a clear picture of the concerns and communications between Laura and Tom months before the event. It's also clear to me that Mark knew Laura didn't 'like' him' and that he states he was not planning to go up until the last minute... How was it that with months gone by that Mark didn't know of and when Tom and Laura had their argument about Tom and Mark not being allowed to attend the event?

The bottom line for me is that Tom and Mark went anyway knowing she was on record as stating she did not want them to attend the event. This may not sit well with people because most people like Mark Bunker and thing it was a given that he should be there, injunction related or not. It does not matter why she did not want them there, although it's clear that she believed that Mark's association with the event would pull all attendees into the injunction. However, it was her decision as organizer of the event and location to not allow them to attend. She made it clear in advance. There is no way that Tom did not inform Mark right after his argument with Laura. Mark even states that he had heard she 'didn't like' him. That she hated him. Knowing this, he should have just stayed away. On the day of the event, Mark decided to go with Tom, knowing she did not want either of them there. His excuse of just finding out that Tom was not being allowed to attend is very questionable. I look at it as Tom and Mark crashing the party, despite the wishes of the party holder. And I could see, in her exasperation at them ignoring her request to not come to the event, a need to get the point across so as to stop preventing them from coming through the door.


Tony Ortega writes:

“I just got kicked out and so did Tom Smith,” Bunker told us by telephone.

Leading up to the days of the conference, Flynn had been saying at the WWP forum that she didn’t want Bunker at the conference because she said it might cause the conference trouble. Bunker has an existing permanent injunction against him taken out by Scientology because of protests that happened more than a decade ago. But that injunction requires him to stay away from Scientology buildings and Scientologists, not critics at a conference.

Bunker tells us he arrived at the conference with local radio host Tom Smith, who was also kicked out by Flynn.

“We arrived here just as John Sweeney and Pete Griffiths and a few others were showing up,” Bunker told us. “We went over to the door and were chatting with people. One local woman came up and said she was really glad to see us there.”

But then Flynn arrived with a Sheriff’s deputy, and had the deputy tell Bunker he had to go. “You know why you have to leave, Mark,” he says Flynn told him.

When Mark tried to talk to Sweeney about what was happening, the deputy told him firmly that he had to leave or “this is getting ugly.”

“I tried to quickly explain what was going on to Sweeney, and now I have just pulled out of here,” Bunker said. He said Sweeney’s wife was filming, so some video footage might show up soon.

“I don’t think I have to leave, but if you want me to, I’ll leave,” Bunker said he told the deputy.

Bunker was also approached by a process server the church apparently sent, who asked him, “Are you Arnie Lerma?”

We wondered why Tom Smith was also asked to leave. He doesn’t have an injunction against him.

“She didn’t want him there,” Bunker said.

Tony:

UPDATE: We just talked to Tom Smith, whose radio shows from several years ago were dynamite interviews of people like Bill Franks.

We asked Tom why he thought Laura Flynn had him kicked out of the conference.

“She wouldn’t give a reason. I’m not subject to any injunctions ever in my life. I’ve never been arrested for anything. I just don’t know what is going on. I was, let’s say, amazed that she did that,” he told us. “And let me say, Mark was just a spectator. This has nothing to do with protesting, so the injunction is not relevant.”

Then Tom told us he had talked to Flynn about Bunker possibly attending some time ago.

“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,” he says.

Tom says he got angry, she thanked him and hung up. “I guess she’s nursing a grudge about me speaking up for Mark. I can’t really think of anything else.”

We then talked again to Bunker, who says he’s seen some of the online chatter about his being kicked out.

“They’re saying that people were being served papers because I arrived tonight? Well Laura had apparently been served this morning. It had nothing to do with me. They were trying to use the injunction as an excuse to serve papers,” Mark says.

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. There are many days when I hate myself. Take a number. But last Friday I heard from Tom Smith who called me to say he wasn’t welcome and I thought this was just silly and I said “let’s just go.” At the most I thought we would be grumbled at. I never expected to have the sheriff’s department kick me out so I left. I wasn’t there to create a scene. I just expected to watch some speakers.

UPDATE: And now here’s what Laura Flynn herself just posted (1:30 am) at WWP. It’s lengthy, but we figure it’s best to post the entire thing.

Hi guise. I’m almost crying from the support here. I wish I’d been able to see this a few hours ago. This past weekend and tonight have been hellish. While everyone else is vacationing and doing radio and tv interviews I’ve been doing the grunt work for this conference. Please keep in mind when you read this wall of text that I am still sick. There’s a flu going around that keeps coming back. While all these things were happening my fever was spiking and then it would break.

Yes a process server or fake process server did bring me a true copy of the LMT injunction today while I was finishing up some of the decorations for the conference. Decorations that I made with my own money and on my own time. The guy who delivered it did make sure that I noted the page that was highlighted in orange basically stating that I can’t be in concert with anyone listed on the injunction. Yeah. I get it. BTW The Norwegian film crew with Geir got a hold of my copy which I took to the venue. They asked for it so I gave it to them. I told them to throw it away when they were done with it because that’s what I was going to do with it.

I took off from my home around 3:30PM with my conference clothes in a publix grocery bag because I had to sweat for two hours setting up the gym with only my husband to help. I didn’t get a chance to even wipe my face or put on make-up of anything. I simply put on my conference clothes in the bathroom at the Minnreg.

I go to sit down at the entrance table and I see Tom Smith outside. I no longer speak to Tom Smith and that is my right. I have not had a conversation with Tom Smith in quite a few months so if he is telling people that he spoke with me about a month ago that is not true. Tom Smith did tell Darth Xander that he would not be attending Flag Down because I was going to be there. Tom Smith did inform Xander that he would be attending the brunch held by TheHoleDoesNotExist on Wednesday morning. So even though I am friends with THDNE I contacted her and told her what was going on and that I would not attend so that Tom could attend an event. She understood even though now people will never see the baton twirling contest that she and I were going to take part in.

I go outside to ask the police officer to ask Tom Smith to leave and I come face-to-face with Mark Bunker who is surrounded by quite a few people.

I immediately went to the police officer that I hired and asked him to please ask these two men to leave. None of you will ever know what it feels like to tell someone about this injunction and that the people listed on it can’t be in concert with other critics and have the person look at you and say, “Why did he show up then?” It’s hard to make people with good common sense understand it.

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

I was never named on that injunction...

I was frivolously charged with violating it in 2001? was it? and found not guilty... during the Clearwater 13 trial..

Mr Bunker was named on that old injunction, and I spoke with the renter of the hall and determined that they do not dislike Mr Bunker. The renter of the hall , like Mr Bunker, dislikes that old injunction, and the 'color of law' it affords $cientology... They just did not have the 50 grand that Minton spent on our defense back then...laying around to fight with the psychopaths in court...if they had admitted him as the way that weasel worded bit of art is phrased is might be interpreted to cover all of pinellas county... and the Judge that signed it is now dead..

arnie lerma

And it's true that years later that the late protester Shawn Lonsdale was sucked into the injunction and deposed under that case because while protesting, he accepted lunch and some money while sitting across the street, out of the injunction area, with one of those named in the injunction. Bottom line, he associated with someone and got sucked in. Knowing this, one can see the concerns Laura had about Mark coming to the event.

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.

Sometimes fair is not fair. This injunction is not fair but it's still on record. Maybe one day it won't be but until then, people should abide by it.

 

[Purple Rain]

It's obvious that Tom and Mark knew they were not wanted at the event long before the event began. It's clear from the below statements that it was discussed. The reasons being the injunction potential for endangering others and a clear picture of the concerns and communications between Laura and Tom months before the event. It's also clear to me that Mark knew Laura didn't 'like' him' and that he states he was not planning to go up until the last minute... How was it that with months gone by that Mark didn't know of and when Tom and Laura had their argument about Tom and Mark not being allowed to attend the event?

The bottom line for me is that Tom and Mark went anyway knowing she was on record as stating she did not want them to attend the event. This may not sit well with people because most people like Mark Bunker and thing it was a given that he should be there, injunction related or not. It does not matter why she did not want them there, although it's clear that she believed that Mark's association with the event would pull all attendees into the injunction. However, it was her decision as organizer of the event and location to not allow them to attend. She made it clear in advance. There is no way that Tom did not inform Mark right after his argument with Laura. Mark even states that he had heard she 'didn't like' him. That she hated him. Knowing this, he should have just stayed away. On the day of the event, Mark decided to go with Tom, knowing she did not want either of them there. His excuse of just finding out that Tom was not being allowed to attend is very questionable. I look at it as Tom and Mark crashing the party, despite the wishes of the party holder. And I could see, in her exasperation at them ignoring her request to not come to the event, a need to get the point across so as to stop preventing them from coming through the door.


Tony Ortega writes:



Tony:


Mark Bunker:




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



And it's true that years later that the late protester Shawn Lonsdale was sucked into the injunction and deposed under that case because while protesting, he accepted lunch and some money while sitting across the street, out of the injunction area, with one of those named in the injunction. Bottom line, he associated with someone and got sucked in. Knowing this, one can see the concerns Laura had about Mark coming to the event.



Sometimes fair is not fair. This injunction is not fair but it's still on record. Maybe one day it won't be but until then, people should abide by it.

So now it's a "party"? I thought it was a "public conference". I'm sure many who donated didn't realise they were doing so to fund somebody's personal party. Smurf certainly didn't. And it is evident from at least one comment in Tony's blog that others would not have donated if they knew this was the case.

 

[Smurf]

Why should Mark have stayed away from what was publicized as a "public event" and financed by public donations?

This was not a private affair paid for by Laura Flynn. She took it on herself to dictate who could & not come to the event. Who gave her the right to decide this?? So far, co-organizer Pete G. has remained quiet about what happened.

What happened to Mark & Tom was only the tip of the iceberg, Mary. Other critics were banned from the event, not by Pete, but by Laura.

 

[AnonyMary]

So now it's a "party"? I thought it was a "public conference". I'm sure many who donated didn't realise they were doing so to fund somebody's personal party. Smurf certainly didn't. And it is evident from at least one comment in Tony's blog that others would not have donated if they knew this was the case.

Don't minimize the whole of my comment. The use of the terms 'party crashers' and 'party holder' were analogies. Any event holder has the right to exclude anyone for any reason. My comment was not about the event as a whole. Nor was it about donations, how it's being run i general and the reasons others may or may not have been allowed to attend. I was just discussing the situation with Mark, Tom and Laura. A very specific topic, in response to news about it and differing comments about it.

I look forward to reading and partaking in any upcoming online Q&A and discussions, concerns and upsets with all the organizers when the event is over.

 

[Smurf]

So now it's a "party"? I thought it was a "public conference". I'm sure many who donated didn't realise they were doing so to fund somebody's personal party. Smurf certainly didn't. And it is evident from at least one comment in Tony's blog that others would not have donated if they knew this was the case. Edit: So I am a known associate of Tory.

And I want them to bring an action at me trying to encroach on my right of protest or association. Oh, please, Scientology, do it. How freaking dare they try to control where I go and with whom I associate?? Fuck them. I'm going back outside Scientology in Clearwater and I freaking DARE them to serve me.

Yup. And Tory was banned too. She's on the injunction. But, as Tory as commented multiple times, Mark's banishment had zero to do with the injunction, as it only applies to *protesting*, not attending a "public" event. Laura Flynn & friends continue to feverishly spin the facts to assist Laura in evading responsibility for her actions.

Clearly, she was not upset about being served a phony injunction. She said it herself in comments she posted to WWP yesterday. She intended to throw the "injunction" into the trash.

 

[AnonyMary]

Why should Mark have stayed away from what was publicized as a "public event" and financed by public donations?

This was not a private affair paid for by Laura Flynn. She took it on herself to dictate who could & not come to the event. Who gave her the right to decide this?? So far, co-organizer Pete G. has remained quiet about what happened.

What happened to Mark & Tom was only the tip of the iceberg, Mary. Other critics were banned from the event, not by Pete, but by Laura.

Listen, I stand by my comment and the quotes by Tom, Mark and Laura which support it. Like I posted above in response to Purple Rain

Don't minimize the whole of my comment. The use of the terms 'party crashers' and 'party holder' were analogies. Any event holder has the right to exclude anyone for any reason. My comment was not about the event as a whole. Nor was it about donations, how it's being run i general and the reasons others may or may not have been allowed to attend. I was just discussing the situation with Mark, Tom and Laura. A very specific topic, in response to news about it and differing comments about it.

I look forward to reading and partaking in any upcoming online Q&A and discussions, concerns and upsets with all the organizers when the event is over.

Smurf, IMHO, its best to wait until the event is over to have others involved in the event address the concerns you mentioned and any other issues.

 

[Smurf]

LOL. Clever.

 

[AnonyMary]

Keep in mind that this was not a 'public event'. People were invited to this event. Or not.
https://www.facebook.com/events/322669541207647/

 

[Smurf]

Keep in mind that this was not a 'public event'. People were invited to this event. Or not.
https://www.facebook.com/events/322669541207647/

Wrong. It was publicized in several newspapers as a public event. The Flag Down website concurs.

"The conference, which is free and open to the public, begins at 6:30 p.m. today at the Minnreg hall, 6340 126th Ave. in Largo. Organizer Pete Griffiths of Ireland, who was a Scientologist for 21 years before leaving in 2008, said a rotation of speakers will talk throughout the week. They include former Scientologists, writers and others with deep knowledge of the church."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scient...ek-long-conference-in-clearwater-area/2178314

"The conference will be open to the public and free to attend."

http://www.flagdown.org

 

[Leland]

Smurf, has the injunction been contested? Is it like a restraining order where there is a court hearing?

 

[Lexing Jenkins]

Mission: Use Flag Down to fracture the unity of critics.

Complete!

 

[Veda]

Keep in mind that this was not a 'public event'. People were invited to this event. Or not.
https://www.facebook.com/events/322669541207647/

That looks great.

How big an event is this? What's the seating capacity of the venue?

This sounds more like a briefing for a selected group. Is an invitation needed to enter?

Forgive me for being so clueless, but I'm still curious.

The aggressive talk of discussions on how to "oust" people etc., just because - and not due to lack of space, or confidentiality (it's being recorded for the Net), or for legal reasons - still seems odd.

Hopefully, this will go smoothly as the ideas (on the Facebook site) and speakers presented are excellent.

 

[AnonyMary]

Wrong. It was publicized in several newspapers as a public event. The Flag Down website concurs.

"The conference, which is free and open to the public, begins at 6:30 p.m. today at the Minnreg hall, 6340 126th Ave. in Largo. Organizer Pete Griffiths of Ireland, who was a Scientologist for 21 years before leaving in 2008, said a rotation of speakers will talk throughout the week. They include former Scientologists, writers and others with deep knowledge of the church."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scient...ek-long-conference-in-clearwater-area/2178314

"The conference will be open to the public and free to attend."

http://www.flagdown.org

OK. I didn't see this. I only ent based upon the invite I received which lead to that page on Facebook. So this will fall on Pete, as the 'organizer'. So be it. And when the event is over, hold him accountable and demand he respond. You won't get any responses now because the event is ongoing. But when it's over, put it on his head since he's supposedly the organizer, not Laura. I am not ignoring the upsets about others not invited or told they can't go. I know the politics on the back channel have been going on for some time between certain peoples. I just think that the Mark and Tom situation was clearly unnecessary, as they knew they were not wanted there and why, long in advance. I don't like that the attention on the event itself is being derailed by all this. It's not fair to those speakers. The Bunker thing created conflict, which OSA loves. Let the conflict rage after the event. It wil anyway.

 

[Smurf]

Smurf, has the injunction been contested? Is it like a restraining order where there is a court hearing?

The date of the injunction was 1999. It arose out of a protest with Bob Minton of the Lisa McPherson Trust, who later, changed sides to avoid further actions by the cult to scrutinize & publicize his financial & professional dealings. The injunction, itself, was not contested that I'm aware of.

Last January, Mark Bunker filed a motion with the Pinellas Circuit Court to remove him from the injunction. The judge that issued the injunction is deceased.

 

[In present time]

Why should Mark have stayed away from what was publicized as a "public event" and financed by public donations?

This was not a private affair paid for by Laura Flynn. She took it on herself to dictate who could & not come to the event. Who gave her the right to decide this?? So far, co-organizer Pete G. has remained quiet about what happened.

What happened to Mark & Tom was only the tip of the iceberg, Mary. Other critics were banned from the event, not by Pete, but by Laura.

Yup. And Tory was banned too. She's on the injunction. But, as Tory as commented multiple times, Mark's banishment had zero to do with the injunction, as it only applies to *protesting*, not attending a "public" event. Laura Flynn & friends continue to feverishly spin the facts to assist Laura in evading responsibility for her actions.

Clearly, she was not upset about being served a phony injunction. She said it herself in comments she posted to WWP yesterday. She intended to throw the "injunction" into the trash.

It would have been so great to see many CW public, as in normal wogs, attending. But, they probably didn't dare.
But the sweet spot is, it will all be posted online.
I have never heard of Laura Flynn, wasn't she on Twin Peaks back in the 80's. Is the finale a midget dancing backward. Indeed, spoiler alert

 

[phenomanon]

And probably she never heard of you.

I sincerely hope not!

 

[degraded being]

OK. I didn't see this. I only ent based upon the invite I received which lead to that page on Facebook. So this will fall on Pete, as the 'organizer'. So be it. And when the event is over, hold him accountable and demand he respond. You won't get any responses now because the event is ongoing. But when it's over, put it on his head since he's supposedly the organizer, not Laura. I am not ignoring the upsets about others not invited or told they can't go. I know the politics on the back channel have been going on for some time between certain peoples. I just think that the Mark and Tom situation was clearly unnecessary, as they knew they were not wanted there and why, long in advance. I don't like that the attention on the event itself is being derailed by all this. It's not fair to those speakers. The Bunker thing created conflict, which OSA loves. Let the conflict rage after the event. It wil anyway.

I hope you don't mind my highlight there. There might be others who, like me, think that Laura is the COB of Flagdown.

 

[AnonyMary]

That looks great.

How big an event is this? What's the seating capacity of the venue?

This sounds more like a small briefing for a selected group. Is an invitation needed to enter?

Forgive me for being so clueless, but I'm still curious.

The aggressive talk of discussions on how to "oust" people etc., just because - and not due to lack of space, or confidentiality (it's being recorded for the Net), or for legal reasons - still seems odd.

Hopefully, this will go smoothly as the ideas (on the Facebook site) and speakers presented are excellent.

According to the post just before this by Smurf, it was to be an open event... I did not know that. I only went by the invite I received. So. I really can't answer your other questions, as i have not paid much attention to the event. On the first day I tried listening to the streaming audio and gave up because of the quality. I am told that today's audio should be better and will check that out.

 

[phenomanon]

There's this concept called "Anonymous."

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

well I didn't ask the Q in the first place becuz I didn't want to seem stoopid.
Are you saying that Laura Flynn is a name used by an Anonymous person???!!*#!