I am Anonymous!!! Who knew?

Lovinglife625

Patron with Honors
This was posted over at WWP but as WWP is down at the moment it is also being posted here:

I am Anonymous!!! Who knew?

Earlier this week I gave a deposition for a case in California and was deposed by the attorney for the other side.

I cannot yet go into what this case is but I will be able to very soon.

According to the attorney deposing me, I am a member of the hate group “Anonymous” (if not in fact the leader of Anonymous). To “prove this” the attorney showed some posts I made from “whyweprotest” showing my avatar wearing a Guy Fawkes mask as well as two pictures of me: 1) one which I put on here showing me in a Volunteer SP T-shirt and a Guy Fawkes mask; 2) one with me with a bunch of Anons where I was giving a speech on the Commons in Boston during “Operation Reconnect” in April 2008. Of interest, I have almost an identical picture of that on my blog and I was the only one in that picture NOT wearing a mask.

When questioned I explained that Anonymous is not a group and that it has no leaders. I said that in my opinion anyone who goes on the internet without identifying themselves is Anonymous. I told him that in my email and some screen names I identify myself as me and if he has ones not identifying himself then it is he who is Anonymous and not me. (I don’t think he liked finding out that it was he and not me that was part of what he considered to be a “hate group”).

I also explained how that part of Anonymous people who helped expose and fight the horrible abuses of organized scientology is but a tiny fraction of all who are Anonymous on the internet. I said that if you had a circle with a three foot diameter that represented all of Anonymous, that part of Anonymous that spoke out about organized scientology would be but a tiny dot within the circle.

I was asked if I attended protests where Anonymous was present on the subject of organized scientology and I said I was in fact proud to have been at the first such worldwide protest in February 2008 and in many more as well as speaking at some. I pointed out that not only were none of the people there part of a hate group but rather they were exposing crimes and/or horrible abuses carried out by and in the name of organized scientology. I said I was proud of probably being the first ex scientologist to publicly and broadly support what Anonymous was doing:

http://tinyurl.com/4yjo9g

He asked why so many of them wore masks and implied that that meant they were criminals and I pointed out how so many were afraid of fair game by organized scientology and gave examples of where they had reason to be afraid as organized scientology tries to get them prosecuted for false and trumped up charges just to get them to stop exposing organized scientology for their fraud and abuses.

The depo was mostly about trying to attack my credibility as an expert witness for the other side and it did not go into what I really would be testifying about. That comes shortly in the hearing. Not a big deal and can be talked about shortly.

By the way I met and spoke with my ethics officers Tory Christman and Nancy Many last week and in order to “balance the flow” and make up for the “damage” I have committed to organized scientology I would like to do two things:

1.Personally invite you all to the L Ron Hubbard centennial birthday celebration this weekend (masks and signs optional):

Larryinvitetoevent.jpg


And 2. As the newest informal “Flag Service Consultant”, I invite you all to “the Friendliest Place on Earth”:

Flagconsultant.jpg
 

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
Lol Larry, ya rock man! :cheers:

Hm, despite the numerous attempts by Anon to explain Anon, there are still many who just cannot get their heads around the concept of faceless-ness/nameless-ness, and a bunch of other ness-ness' lolol
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
A perfect foot-bullet.

Larry is questioned as being a "member" of the "hate group Anonymous" which gives him the opportunity to promote and put on record the worldwide anonymous internet campaign to expose the criminality and excesses of the hate group called scientology! :roflmao:

I've never understood the cult's off-policy reaction to Anonymous. Hubbard's orders were to publically ignore critics and not give them any publicity by openly opposing them.

Of course his stupid policy was always stupid and he was not around to invent more stupid policy to handle the new and unpredicted phenomenon of the internet.

And he ignored his own policy when he published the orders to murder people in the auditor magazine.

auditor-37-1968-p2.jpg


Masks are good, masks are wise, the hate-cult of scientology is dangerous! :yes:
 

elwood

Patron with Honors
A perfect foot-bullet.

Larry is questioned as being a "member" of the "hate group Anonymous" which gives him the opportunity to promote and put on record the worldwide anonymous internet campaign to expose the criminality and excesses of the hate group called scientology! :roflmao:

I've never understood the cult's off-policy reaction to Anonymous. Hubbard's orders were to publically ignore critics and not give them any publicity by openly opposing them.

Of course his stupid policy was always stupid and he was not around to invent more stupid policy to handle the new and unpredicted phenomenon of the internet.

And he ignored his own policy when he published the orders to murder people in the auditor magazine.

auditor-37-1968-p2.jpg


Masks are good, masks are wise, the hate-cult of scientology is dangerous! :yes:


I noticed the SP declare is from Auditor #37 in 1968 and declares those folks as "Fair Game". Would this have been published before or after "Fair Game" was "canceled".
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I noticed the SP declare is from Auditor #37 in 1968 and declares those folks as "Fair Game". Would this have been published before or after "Fair Game" was "canceled".

Oh, that's a great question!

From the Wikipedia entry on Fair Game:

In a policy letter dated July 21, 1968, Hubbard explicitly cancelled these penalties. The new list of Penalties for Lower Conditions now said that someone in a condition of Enemy "(m)ay be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure [...]. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any [Scientology organisation]."[19] The same list says that in a condition of Treason, a person, "May not be protected by the rights and fair practices he sought to destroy for others. May be retrained or debarred. [...] Not covered by amnesties." Another policy letter from October that year announces:
"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This [policy letter] does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."[19][20][21]
[17]
The church has maintained that the Fair Game policy was rescinded in 1968, because people had misinterpreted it. Spokesmen said that Hubbard's intended meaning was merely that former members could not appeal to Scientology's legal system for support or protection against anyone who might try to trick, sue or destroy them.[3][22][23] Sociologist Roy Wallis commented that this interpretation seemed to be "contradicted by the words on the page, and by actions taken against those regarded as enemies of the movement."[17]


The Church continued to pursue an aggressive response to external critics, especially the US Government.[1] The doctrine of "Fair Game" was a central element of the Guardian's Office's operational policies. The original 1965 "Fair Game Law" is listed as a reference for GO staff in its confidential Intelligence Course,[24] which was later entered into evidence in a US Federal court case in 1979.[25] During the case Church lawyers admitted that "Fair Game" had been practiced long after its supposed cancellation in 1968.
I wonder if Jim Logan knows about this!:ohmy:
 
Last edited:
Top