What's new
By:
Filters

Flagdown 2014: media coverage, etc

failboat

failboat

Patron with Honors
RogerB said:
For the cost of a $ or two . . . you go back to the Court,. .

Ummm, and all for the cost of a little time and a few $$ . . . the Clerks of the Courts are wonderfully helpful in this regard . . . they provide you with all kinds of documents and guidance . . .
Click to expand...

I think this bears repeating:
failboat said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
CommunicatorIC

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Purple Rain said:
So are you telling me that anytime I am seen with Tory in Florida that I can never protest Scientology at Clearwater ever again, or just if I am seen with her ever? You all, who know how far these ramifications stretch. Do tell.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying that you can never protest Scientology in Clearwater simply because you were seen with Tory. That is a gross and misleading oversimplification.

What I am saying is that if:

(1) you attended an event in Clearwater (or an adjoining town) that was specifically billed as an "anti-Scientology" event;

(2) Tory attended the same event;

(3) witnesses could later testify (and perhaps produce video, recordings, photographs, etc. evidencing) that you and Tory hung out, talked at length, talked extensively, etc. -- and perhaps made derogatory comments about Scientology or discussed the subject of picketing;


​
Then, the COS could later argue in Court that:

(4) you were "acting in concert" with Tory regarding Scientology and picketing;

(5) you were therefore covered by and subject to the injunction as one "acting in concert" with a named person, i.e., Tory; and

(6) you violated the injunction if you picketed in a prohibited zone (as set forth in the injunction) or in a prohibited way (e.g., within 10 feet of a COS member).
​

I am not saying the above argument is in fact legally correct, or that the COS would win. I'm saying; (a) the COS could and would make the argument; (b) the argument is not frivolous, and would support the COS hauling you into Court for alleged violation of the permanent injunction even if the COS ultimately lost; (b) you would be hauled into Court and incur attorney's fees to fight the COS efforts to hold you in contempt of Court for violation of the injunction; and .

If you want to take that risk, fine -- more power to you. Neither you nor Mark Bunker, however, has the right to insist that others incur that risk, much less that they incur that risk unknowingly.

Flag Down always included a protest of the COS in Clearwater. The last thing the organizers needed was for Mark Bunker, Tory or another person named in the injunction to attend the conference (perhaps all day every day), hang out, talk at length with people (and perhaps be videoed, recorded, photographed and/or PI witnessed doing so), and then have the COS assert that the attendees (or at least the attendees who were witnessed talking at length to Mark, Tory, or other person named in the injunction) were "acting in concert" and thus subject to the injunction.

Think about it. Assume Mark Bunker was admitted to the "anti-Scientology" conference, attended all day, every day, was witnessed talking to people, and then everyone except Mark went to downtown Clearwater to protest the COS. Do you think there is any chance that the COS wouldn't argue in Court that these protestors were acting in concert with Mark?

As someone observed on WWP, Mark Bunker could have easily avoided this problem by letting people know, "Hey, I'm in town. I'll be hanging out at X Starbucks. Here is the situation with me being subject to a permanent injunction. [Provide info.] I'd love for people to see me if they are comfortable doing so." That way people could have made informed decisions. Instead, he attempted to inject himself into a situation where many people who were not aware of the injunction or his status as an enjoined person would not be aware of the risk.

The permanent injunction is obviously a problem. Tory and Mark had an opportunity to fight it before it was issued. I don't know if they defaulted, agreed to it, or fought it on the merits and lost. If, however, one of them wants the injunction vacated or modified, it is up to them to go to Court and seek relief. It is not fair for them or others to insist that the permanent injunction -- a binding court order -- is bullshit, or "obviously" inapplicable (because I'm sure all of the people making such arguments are attorneys admitted to practice law in the State of Florida who have thoroughly researched the legal issues), and incur the risk of violation.
 
failboat

failboat

Patron with Honors
Purple Rain said:
I associated with Tory before protesting at Clearwater. The youtube is up on her channel and pictures were taken by Antonio from the cult. Nothing happened. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Are you planning on protesting in Clearwater again? How soon? How often?
 
failboat

failboat

Patron with Honors
Anonycat said:
Show me dox that Mark was going to protest that weekend, and I will. Otherwise STFU.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't have to protest that weekend. He would merely have to attend the conference, and then other conference attendees who then protested Clearwater that weekend could potentially be served. See CiC's post above.
 
CommunicatorIC

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
RogerB said:
failboat, you and your cohorts with your interpretation of what the injunction states are way off. And as far as I can see are only indulging in justifying a screw up . . . but certainly you fellas are singing the CofS song on their behalf in scaring up a big bugaboo that the injunction could/might be used against folks organizing a public conference outside of the limits defined in the order.

This I have copied form post #165 on this thread . . .



Note the part in Red . . . it specifically defines the geographic limits to which the restriction of actions/protests are enjoined.

Noted the part in Blue . . . it specifically states that the individuals named MAY, repeat MAY engage in whatever ordinarily lawful activities they choose in all other areas in Pinellas County, Florida.

Note in Green the CofS is also enjoined and prevented from the named actions in similar limited geographic locations.

As to item:
19. This injunction is valid and enforceable in all counties of the State of Florida.

Don't misconstrue or misrepresent what that means . . . it is simply stating that, should the enjoined actions be committed in the defined, limited geographic locations (i. e., at the Cof$ properties in Clearwater or Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc. property) then subsequent Court action and service of summons is valid and enforceable anywhere in the state . . . not just in Pinellas County.

So, my recommendation is . . . knock off trumpeting the cult's "scary" boogaboo . . . that is, unless you want to do their work for them.

You guys went off half-cocked on the issue of the applicability and enforceability of this injunction relative to the public conference in the location it was planned . . . and note above in blue, the injunction itself says so!!!!

Apart from all that, I am tired of arguing with and trying to inform people who, to use your phrase: "don't get it."

For my part, the scare of the CofS taking action in this matter based on these facts I call a toothless wolf.

It's a shame you fellas didn't either analyze what the injunction actually says and allows or get some good legal opinion on the matter before empowering the cult's threat.

While the conference speakers will have done a wonderful job this time, I really begin to think that the conduct of this caper and the bad publicity created has damaged the credibility of those who in future might act to do similar events.

And please don't attempt the run the ruberic as has been run on others here who called the errors of this caper as they have been by asking me, "Have you ever created and run a conference?" . . . the answer is yes; three.

And as to the legal issues? Well I am no US attorney but as a retired member of the International Chiefs of Police Association . . . and having studied commercial law in Oz . . . errr, ummm, I do know how to read a Court document and apply such and am somewhat versed in the issues of civil liberties and those rights and violations of such.

For now, my recommendation is: stop singing the boogy-man song of the cult . . . you'll scare the children into thinking the cult will come and get them.

RogerB
Click to expand...
Roger, you keep on missing the issue and continue to throw up an irrelevant red herring. I don't know whether you are doing so deliberately or because you simply don't understand.

I'm going to repeat myself yet again because: (1) I really can't say it better; and (2) I want to juxtapose your argument and my argument, and let everyone decide.

Again, Laura was not concerned that the injunction would somehow be violated by Mark Bunker attendance at the conference. Laura was instead concerned about what effect Mark Bunker's attendance at the conference might have on the ability of other conference attendees to later picket the COS in Clearwater in injunction covered areas (i.e., in zones designated by the injunction) and injunction covered ways (e.g., within 10 feet of a Scientologist) without being subjected to legal harassment by the COS.

The Permanent Injunction provides in relevant part:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. A permanent injunction is entered against the defendants, Robert S. Minton, Jr., Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc,, Jesse Prince, Grady Ward, Stacy Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander, Mark Bunker and Tory Bezazian, their members, officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction, enjoining them from picketing, protesting, and/or demonstrating in the areas designated in BLUE (the "prohibited zones") (picketing, protesting, and/or demonstrating is ALLOWED in areas designated in ORANGE) on the diagrams of certain properties owned and/or operated by the Church (see Composite Exhibit A?1 attached hereto and incorporated into this Order), and from engaging in any of the aforementioned activities within ten feet of any entrance or exit actually used frequently on a daily basis to all Church property listed on Exhibit B and not expressly included in the prohibited zones designated in Exhibit A? I .

2. The foregoing paragraph prohibits picketing, protesting and/or demonstrating in areas designated in BLUE (see Exhibit A?1) ac well as in areas within ten feet of any entrance or exit actually used frequently on a daily basis to Church property that is not expressly included in the prohibited zones designated in BLUE (see Exhibit B). As to all other areas in Pinellas County, Florida, the named defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual conccrt or participation with them, are free to engage in lawful picketing, lawful protesting and lawful demonstrating. "Lawful" picketing means "not contrary to or forbidden by law", provided that at all times while picketing, all persons bound by this injunction shall comply with the anti?noise provisions of this injunction.

3. The defendants, Robert S. Minton, Jr., Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., Jesse Prince, Grady Ward, Stacy Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander, Mark Bunker and Tory Bezazian, their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction are permanently enjoined: (1) from coming within ten (10) feet of any member of the Church; (2) from blocking the path of any member or any motor vehicle of the Church; and (3) from physically or by any other means inhibiting any Church member, any member of the general public, or any motor vehicle, from entering or leaving any Church properties that are listed in the schedule of properties that is Exhibit B to this order.

4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it shall not be a violation of this permanent injunction for any person otherwise engaged in lawful conduct to move without interruption through a prohibited zone en route from one non?prohibited zone to another non?prohibited zone, so long as that person keeps any pickets or other signs held below the waist and upside down or otherwise covered or obscured or held horizontally in such a way that the writing on the pickets or other signs is not obviously displayed, and so long as the person complies with the prohibition on excessive noise making set forth in paragraph S below. This provision applies to all persons and entities who are subject to the terms of this injunction.

5. The defendants, Robert S. Minton, Jr., Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., Jesse Prince, Grady Ward, Stacy Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander, Mark Bunker and Tory Bezazian, their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction, are permanently enjoined from making any loud and raucous noise such as, but not limited to yelling, shouting, whistling or singing (whether by natural or amplified voice), or by the employment of any mechanical device such as a horn, whistle, or other noisemaker that creates a loud and raucous noise that can be heard inside any of the Church properties that are listed in the schedule of properties that is Exhibit B to this order. A "loud and raucous noise" is any sound which because of its volume level, duration, and character, annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, health, peace or safety of reasonable persons of ordinary sensibilities.

6. The defendants, Robert S. Minton, Jr., Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., Jesse Prince, Grady Ward, Stacy Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander, Mark Bunker and Tory Bezazian, their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction, are permanently enjoined from entering upon any of the Church properties that are listed in the schedule of properties that is Exhibit B to this order.

7. The defendants, Robert S. Minton, Jr., Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., Jesse Prince, Grady Ward, Stacy Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander, Mark Bunker and Tory Bezazian, their officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction, are permanently enjoined from committing any acts of harassment or violence against any member of the Church, including, without limitation, any UNSOLICITED physical, verbal or written contact with any Church staff or parishioner. Videotaping from a distance of more than 10 feet shall not be considered harassment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Anonycat

Anonycat

Crusader
failboat said:
I find I repeat myself a lot here. See CiC's post for a reasonable scenario that could cause conference attendees who unknowingly spoke to Mark Bunker (were he to attend) to be enjoined if they attend the protest on Saturday.
Click to expand...

I don't find it reasonable, nor your explanation of it. By that logic, if 500 people attend his upcoming documentary screening, with Mark attending, they could all be arrested for protesting or doing other things later? Because they acted in Concert, or Participated? Is that it?

It says in the injunction that this does not affect the public. So ... ?
 
George Layton

George Layton

Silver Meritorious Patron
If you know the designated areas allowed for protesting, wouldn't the safest route be to stay in those? If your going to fear any repercussions from cos for protesting that is. Also that way everyone that cares to join in can go along.

ETA: Also the way cos likes to spin things who is to say that cos doesn't already have pics of Mark Bunker there and will call him in concert with the parties there already?
 
failboat

failboat

Patron with Honors
Anonycat said:
I don't find it reasonable, nor your explanation of it.
Click to expand...
Deal_With_It.jpg

Well, it wasn't your call to make. It wasn't your ass potentially on the line.

People shouldn't hold the LMT injunction against the Clearwater Anons. They don't like the injunction and they wish it would go away.

People should hold the LMT injunction against the CoS, and, to a lesser degree, against the people named in it. They're the ones whose burden it is to fight the injunction and get it lifted. Not the Clearwater Anons.
 
Last edited:
Anonycat

Anonycat

Crusader
George Layton said:
If you know the designated areas allowed for protesting, wouldn't the safest route be to stay in those? If your going to fear any repercussions from cos for protesting that is. Also that way everyone that cares to join in can go along.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you.

See:

injunction protesting.jpg

injunction protesting 2.jpg
 
Anonycat

Anonycat

Crusader
failboat said:
View attachment 7228

Well, it wasn't your call to make.

You shouldn't hold the LMT injunction against the Clearwater Anons. They don't like the injunction and they wish it would go away.

You should hold the LMT injunction against the CoS, and, to a lesser degree, against the people named in it. Those are the people whose burden it is to fight the injunction and get it lifted. Not the Clearwater Anons.
Click to expand...

Did I suggest the 3 or 4 anons in Clearwater should make the injunction go away? Hmm?
 
Purple Rain

Purple Rain

Crusader
CommunicatorIC said:
Nobody is saying that you can never protest Scientology in Clearwater simply because you were seen with Tory. That is a gross and misleading oversimplification.

What I am saying is that if:

(1) you attended an event in Clearwater (or an adjoining town) that was specifically billed as an "anti-Scientology" event;

(2) Tory attended the same event;

(3) witnesses could later testify (and perhaps produce video, recordings, photographs, etc. evidencing) that you and Tory hung out, talked at length, talked extensively, etc. -- and perhaps made derogatory comments about Scientology or discussed the subject of picketing;


​
Then, the COS could later argue in Court that:

(4) you were "acting in concert" with Tory regarding Scientology and picketing;

(5) you were therefore covered by and subject to the injunction as one "acting in concert" with a named person, i.e., Tory; and

(6) you violated the injunction if you picketed in a prohibited zone (as set forth in the injunction) or in a prohibited way (e.g., within 10 feet of a COS member).
​

I am not saying the above argument is in fact legally correct, or that the COS would win. I'm saying; (a) the COS could and would make the argument; (b) the argument is not frivolous, and would support the COS hauling you into Court for alleged violation of the permanent injunction even if the COS ultimately lost; (b) you would be hauled into Court and incur attorney's fees to fight the COS efforts to hold you in contempt of Court for violation of the injunction; and .

If you want to take that risk, fine -- more power to you. Neither you nor Mark Bunker, however, has the right to insist that others incur that risk, much less that they incur that risk unknowingly.

Flag Down always included a protest of the COS in Clearwater. The last thing the organizers needed was for Mark Bunker, Tory or another person named in the injunction to attend the conference (perhaps all day every day), hang out, talk at length with people (and perhaps be videoed, recorded, photographed and/or PI witnessed doing so), and then have the COS assert that the attendees (or at least the attendees who were witnessed talking at length to Mark, Tory, or other person named in the injunction) were "acting in concert" and thus subject to the injunction.

Think about it. Assume Mark Bunker was admitted to the "anti-Scientology" conference, attended all day, every day, was witnessed talking to people, and then everyone except Mark went to downtown Clearwater to protest the COS. Do you think there is any chance that the COS wouldn't argue in Court that these protestors were acting in concert with Mark?

As someone observed on WWP, Mark Bunker could have easily avoided this problem by letting people know, "Hey, I'm in town. I'll be hanging out at X Starbucks. Here is the situation with me being subject to a permanent injunction. [Provide info.] I'd love for people to see me if they are comfortable doing so." That way people could have made informed decisions. Instead, he attempted to inject himself into a situation where many people who were not aware of the injunction or his status as an enjoined person would not be aware of the risk.

The permanent injunction is obviously a problem. Tory and Mark had an opportunity to fight it before it was issued. I don't know if they defaulted, agreed to it, or fought it on the merits and lost. If, however, one of them wants the injunction vacated or modified, it is up to them to go to Court and seek relief. It is not fair for them or others to insist that the permanent injunction -- a binding court order -- is bullshit, or "obviously" inapplicable (because I'm sure all of the people making such arguments are attorneys admitted to practice law in the State of Florida who have thoroughly researched the legal issues), and incur the risk of violation.
Click to expand...

1. Scientology know that Tory and I hang out. Apart from this youtube on her channel, the security guard at PAC said "You were the FR from ACT, right?" So yeah, they know who I am and they have seen me not only protesting outside Scientology buildings with Tory, but the youtube is on her channel. I'm sure they don't monitor that. Lol.

[video=youtube;nGdX5yh0wwM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGdX5yh0wwM[/video]

2. Not sure if I was in the zone or not. Ask De Elizabethan and Xander - they were there protesting and Xander took our picture at the same time as the cult security guard. We waved and smiled for him.

3. I'll be back.
 
I

i'mglib

Patron with Honors
Somehow this debate has been selectively turned into a discussion of the validity of throwing Mark Bunker out based on the injunction. If that were the only issue then obviously there wouldn't be this much butt hurt.

The big issue is the way people were insulted who could potentially have been interested in attending. It's one thing to say all would be welcome but another to call people names such as Karen ("de la carrion") Mike Rinder ("Rinderburn"), and Tony ("Blowtega"). Please, how is this welcoming not just to the people named, but to people who consider themselves friends of those insulted? There's way more too but you get the picture.

Sure you can cherry pick a statement here or there saying all are welcome, but it's very disingenuous.

There's more in my last post that I think got lost (bottom of page 14).

I like what Roger B said about how to most exes this isn't just some fun adventure.


Edit: Karen says that she and Mike Rinder were asked to speak, so who knows. I felt this needed to be added though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top