Flagdown 2014: media coverage, etc

[Leland]

Mine's bigger than your's. F*#K.... Are you kidding me?

 

[AnonyMary]

This is a load of crap, Mary, no matter how much you choose to spin it. Mark & Tom's banishment had zero to do with the injunction. Given the cult's elusive ability to lie & misinterpret the letter of the law, the cult, if it wanted to, could get claim those that were allowed in.. Arnie Lerma, Michael Tilse & few others of being an "associate" of Mark Bunker because they are his Facebook friends.

Go right ahead giving Laura Flynn an excuse to lie & manufacture reasons why she banned Mark. It only makes you looked stupid. Laura Flynn is a legend in her own mind who claimed the Flag Down event as her personal project. She forgets that numerous donations financed this project.

Even now, Laura continues to gloat to her adoring fan club on WWP about her role in the event.

You obviously did not read what I wrote, especially the quotes from Tom, Mark and Tony.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...a-coverage-etc&p=931256&viewfull=1#post931256

It's clear that she did like them and did not want them there and told Tom so way in advance and Mark got the message from Tom because how else was he to know that Laura "hates' him?

The point being, the injunction point ( her interpretation of it voiced publicly after the fact) was a minor issue on what she acted upon. She let them know in advance that they were not welcome. They went anyway. They admitted to all this in their comments in Tony's article. My link with quotes shows this. She did what she thought was the best way at the moment to get the point across since they intentionally went anyway after she made it clear they were not welcome to attend the event. She had that right. I don't agree with how she handled it but I also don't like what Mark and Tom did, going despite being told they were not welcome.

The whole issue of the injunction is a derailment off of the facts in this particular matter.

Nuff said....

 

[Boomima]

Yo Purple Rain...........

A) This "Injunction" IS **ONLY**
having to do with PICKETING
IN CLEARWATER, FLORIDA...ONLY!

B) You will *never* see ME in Clearwater, FL...for more reasons
than this stupid Injunction.

So come to LA and we shall picket..........or ANYWHERE Else in the world

****HUGS*** and love

Tory/Magoo

PS: Disconnection is ********NEVER******** a solution, no matter what!
It's a $cientology Action.

Magoo,
I have a wee question for you - did you ever have a lawyer review the injunction? I find it nearly impossible to believe that a court would rule against me if I held a conference for critics of Scientology in Hernando County (to the north of Pinellas), invited Mark Bunker to speak, and then some of the people went to Clearwater to protest. That is insanely broad and would seem to be unenforceable.

 

[ILove2Lurk]

. . .
Here's an aspirin that's been specially
formulated for readers of this thread.

View attachment 7233

Instant headache relief.



​

 

[Smurf]

Magoo,
I have a wee question for you - did you ever have a lawyer review the injunction? I find it nearly impossible to believe that a court would rule against me if I held a conference for critics of Scientology in Hernando County (to the north of Pinellas), invited Mark Bunker to speak, and then some of the people went to Clearwater to protest. That is insanely broad and would seem to be unenforceable.

Generally, I would say it is legal unenforceable but alot has changed in the political & judicial makeup since the Lisa McPherson days. Many Florida officials have fallen for the Scientology PR and are afraid to tangle (or deal with the headaches of potential litigation) from a lawsuit-happy cult.

Hernando County is close enough to Pinellas County for OSA Legal to tamper with the judicial process there.

 

[TG1]

Magoo,
I have a wee question for you - did you ever have a lawyer review the injunction? I find it nearly impossible to believe that a court would rule against me if I held a conference for critics of Scientology in Hernando County (to the north of Pinellas), invited Mark Bunker to speak, and then some of the people went to Clearwater to protest. That is insanely broad and would seem to be unenforceable.

GO FOR IT!

Really. Go for it!

 

[Anonycat]

Ahem. I beg to differ.


Lots of media, including Bryan Seymore from Australia and the guy from Scn's Freedom Magazine.

Oh look, is that Will Fry in his historic coming out in public after his legendary Sherdog thread? Yes. It is.

[/IMG]

 

[FoTi]

View attachment 7228

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.

Who is holding the LMT injunction against the Clearwater Anons?

 

[Smurf]

Oh look, is that Will Fry in his historic coming out in public after his legendary Sherdog thread? Yes. It is.

What did he say on Sherdog? I only recall him & Scarlett Hanna getting married by Russell Brand & he changing his last name to DeBoer.

 

[Purple Rain]

Let us, for a moment at least, leave aside Mark Bunker where we disagree.

If Laura excluded Tom Smith from attending merely because she didn't like him, I would say that was inappropriate and, indeed, wrong.

If Laura excluded others from attending for no good reason, and merely because she didn't like them, I would say that was inappropriate and wrong. Although I have seen statements to the effect that others were excluded for no good reason, but I haven't seen any specific names, purported reasons, or facts.

Smurf has already said that he was excluded after donating.

 

[Anonycat]

What did he say on Sherdog? I only recall him & Scarlett Hanna getting married by Russell Brand & he changing his last name to DeBoer.

You know he loves mixed martial arts, and that was his forum for that interest. That is also where he first came out as an ex-scilon. It all took off from there.

 

[Smurf]

Smurf has already said that he was excluded after donating.

On WWP, Laura posted that Tom was excluded because he was in the company of Mark Bunker, though Mark said they arrived at the event in separate cars (just as John Sweeney was arriving). Mark was surrounded outside with well-wishers, including Tom. Tom's exclusion was a personal decision by Laura Flynn.

 

[Boomima]

On WWP, Laura posted that Tom was excluded because he was in the company of Mark Bunker, though Mark said they arrived at the event in separate cars (just as John Sweeney was arriving). Mark was surrounded outside with well-wishers, including Tom. Tom's exclusion was a personal decision by Laura Flynn.

Is John Duignan an associate of Magoo's because they both participated in Dublin Offlines and the protests in 2012? What about Pete? Are they going to protest in Clearwater? If they go into a prohibited area is that a concern?

(Thank you for indulging my questions, Smurf. Paralegals do spend a lot of time reading and sorting through legal documents. It's sort of unfair to suggest that you are just being...glib when you talk about the law.)

 

[Smurf]

Is John Duignan an associate of Magoo's because they both participated in Dublin Offlines and the protests in 2012? What about Pete? Are they going to protest in Clearwater? If they go into a prohibited area is that a concern?

(Thank you for indulging my questions, Smurf. Paralegals do spend a lot of time reading and sorting through legal documents. It's sort of unfair to suggest that you are just being...glib when you talk about the law.)

Yes, the cult can claim we are all "associates" of each other (and they do) because we are Facebook friends with each other & we posts all Internet blogs & groups critical of Scientology.

Does it have any legal backing to the claims? No. Don't be put off by all the Perry Mason wannabes posting here.

 

[TG1]

 

[FoTi]

Could you possibly come up with a more easily distinguishable factual scenario and weaker straw man argument than this?

Any minimally decent attorney is much less likely to believe he can non-frivolously argue, and any Court is much less likely to find, that "A" and "B" are "acting in concert" withing the meaning of an injunction regulating the picketing of the Church of Scientology when they: (a) are merely Facebook friends; than (b) both attend a multi-day conference specifically billed as an "anti-Scientology" conference and are witnessed (and perhaps videoed, recorded or photographed) conversing at length about the subject of the conference.

It is difficult to believe that any Court would find, or that even the COS would argue, that two people are "acting in concert" merely because they are Facebook friends.

It is less difficult to believe that a Court would find, and far less difficult to believe that the COS would assert and argue, that two people are "acting in concert" with regard to a injunction governing picketing of the Church of Scientology when they both attend and converse at a multi-day ant-Scientology conference.

The simple truth is it was not your decision. You weren't responsible for trying to protect people who knew were going to picket the COS at the end of the week. You had no responsibility. You had no skin in the game.

EDITED TO ADD:

Your combination in the second quotation of Facebook Friendship and someone attending the conference also adds a degree of separation issue. Let me elaborate.

Say Arnie Lerma is Facebook Friends with Mark Bunker and pickets in a prohibited zone or way. If the COS asserts that Arnie is acting in
concert with Mark based on the Facebook friendship alone, then Arnie's attendance at the conference is irrelevant.

Now say Arnie Lerma is Facebook Friends with Mark Bunker. Bunker doesn't attend the conference. Arnie attends the conference with person "A." Later "A" pickets in a prohibited zone or way. (Arnie does not picket.) The COS then says that "A" was acting in concert with Mark because, and only because, he attended a ant-Scientology conference with Arnie who is Facebook friends with Mark. That is the degree of separation issue / problem. That argument is very attenuated and nothing like scenario I described where Mark attends and converses with "A" at a anti-Scientology conference.

Holy moly.....I'm falling asleep.

 

[elwood]

^^^^^^^^^^

What he said.

 

[Purple Rain]

^^^^^^^^^^

What he said.

What she said.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Holy moly.....I'm falling asleep.

Look for your MU.

 

[FoTi]

You obviously did not read what I wrote, especially the quotes from Tom, Mark and Tony.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...a-coverage-etc&p=931256&viewfull=1#post931256

It's clear that she did like them and did not want them there and told Tom so way in advance and Mark got the message from Tom because how else was he to know that Laura "hates' him?

The point being, the injunction point ( her interpretation of it voiced publicly after the fact) was a minor issue on what she acted upon. She let them know in advance that they were not welcome. They went anyway. They admitted to all this in their comments in Tony's article. My link with quotes shows this. She did what she thought was the best way at the moment to get the point across since they intentionally went anyway after she made it clear they were not welcome to attend the event. She had that right. I don't agree with how she handled it but I also don't like what Mark and Tom did, going despite being told they were not welcome.

The whole issue of the injunction is a derailment off of the facts in this particular matter.

Nuff said....

Mary....if you were putting on an event and you asked for donations and told people it was a public event and someone donated toward the event, would you then tell that donator they couldn't come after they already contributed to it, and then make a scene if they did show up to come hear the speakers?

To me, this is like what CoS does.....they regged me for donations for the supa powa building and then when they held their first event there, I was shut out from attending.....I wasn't welcome even though I had contributed and helped toward the funding of their building. Give me your money.....fuck you very much.....now get lost or I'll sic the fuzz on you.