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
, we may wind up missing these wonderful speakers... 
Tory/Magoo