Customize

23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by TinyDancer, Feb 23, 2010.

  1. tikk Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I've posted on this elsewhere in one of the flier threads on this topic, but to sum up, I wouldn't necessarily conclude that the flier wasn't defamatory because Anonymous is a group; members of a defamed group may have a cause of action if the group is deemed small enough because they're easily identified as the targets of the defamation. If you consider that the fliers are targeting local Anons (and "disaffected members), and not Anonymous, the worldwide brand, the question regarding whether a group member has been defamed becomes much closer.

    That said, I think the flier avoids defamation (but that's just my opinion), but is a good example of "false light," which is similar to defamation, and recognized in California. False light is satisfied in a similar manner as defamation but the statement merely needs to be misleading instead of false. These fliers are malicious and misleading, and local SJ Anons can be said to have been injured by them (so long as they're "known" members of the group--you can't have been injured if nobody knows you're a member).

    It's not clear to me whether the "group defamation" exceptions for small groups would apply to false light because false light is actually a subset of privacy torts, not defamation, but I think a good argument could be made that the group defamation exception lends itself to false light.

    I believe that the city possibly incurred liability by publishing these fliers and think that point should be raised in future discussions on the topic with the County, which will likely take this more seriously if it believes it holds liability.
  2. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Great speeches by all. I am getting a little swoony over Will.
  3. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    For me, this was the absolute best public speaking presentation regarding scientology related issues I have seen to date, better than the terrific LA News Conference which was pretty fantastic.

    It could always be better and I think your point is valid.

    It would be great to see you make the effort to transcribe the words from the Santa Clara speeches and produce an original transcription of the speeches, then produce a revised transcription that accomplishes what you suggest with approximately the same number of words used by each participant.
  4. Smurf Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHZdwkpQ-pE"]YouTube- Ginger alert![/ame]
  5. Rockyj Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    OMG! TOO FUNNY my Mojito eerped on screen!
  6. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Keep it simple.

    Don't get bogged down in claims of defamation or libel.

    DMS's idiotic flier makes SPECIFIC claims against Anonymous protesters; namely slashing tires and burning school buses.

    Since she decided to attribute these acts to Anonymous... and to run with it... demand to see the police reports that document these events (if they even exist). Then demand proof that there is any sort of connection between the protests and these events (vs. random and unidentified crap that happens all the time).

    No investigations regarding Anonymous? No direct connection? No warrants? No arrests? No convictions? Nada?

    I think we're a lot better off if we stick to the claims put forth in her flier... while demanding her office supply the evidence to substantiate them.

    Where did this information come from? How was it verified? What records exist?

    She's gonna have one hell of a fun time answering these questions.
  7. Rockyj Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Excellent all county hours she spent on this! "I'm sure she bills hours for lots of these community meetings she is attending
    She may be collecting mileage and meals."
    Its called "per diem" and state & tribal government's usually go by federal per diem rates. California - FY 2010 per diem rates

    Also any time she spent with "John A." Sillycon guy should be taken into consideration!
  8. Rockyj Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I totally disagree the flyer was NOT just about "group defamation" its about discrimination of all ANON's! The flyer, basically meant to WARN the local community that anyone who protests against $cientology (by practicing free speech) must be a member of "Anonymous" who are a bunch of criminals!

    I SEE A WINNING CIVIL LAWSUIT HERE - BIG TIME!
  9. Belladonna Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Rockyj, tikk's a lawyer.
  10. Herro Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Don't you guys always go out of your way to say that there is no Anonymous, no group, no members, just individuals deciding to protest scientology? Who was slandered?

    Woah careful now, it sounds to me like you're saying that their presentation wasn't prefect, transcendent brilliance. That might make others here unhappy and we can't have that!

    /passive aggressive
  11. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I see your point, but as I will be telling herro below, we don't care about our image. I see this as an excuse to get up in front of the BoS and tell them about Scientology. And that Scientology is a crazy, lying, manipulative and abusive cult.

    It looks like there is going to be a good chance that the news of Scientology manupulating, and abusing the people of the county and their government offices, will be mentioned in the newspapers, and nearly as good of chance that the BoS will have to respond in way that would most likely be politically expedient and dismiss Scientology's claims, and formally state that their was no evidence of protesters acting the way Scientology claims. (County government calling them liars, manipulators, and abusers.)

    Our only wins are Scientology's failures.


    I think that was already asked and answered by tikk. But when we started this we made it clear that we don't care about our reputation. (because unknown people have no reputations)
  12. BigBeard Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Great job by all.

    Hopefully this will give some of the other state and federal politicians that have been contacted a clue the mess Allender and McKee-Stovall created ISN"T going to quietly fade into the background.

    And maybe now the Mercury News might actually pay some attention to the situation. Or at the least actually print some of the letters sent to them about it. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

    BigBeard
  13. Herro Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    That's all well and good but if you want people to listen to you, if you want people to pay attention to what you say, then managing your image is very important. Or you could make your work twice as difficult by striving to maintain the image of a bunch of people that don't care about their image. Whatever works for you.

    To be perfectly honest, I would be rather surprised if any "other state and federal politicians" will notice four people speaking at a local governmental forum.
  14. BigBeard Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Well here's hoping you get surprised.

    BigBeard
  15. exOT8Michael Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    My point about a lawyer is that the County would have to place the matter into the legal dept and that is hard to brush under the rug or ignore.
    The flier was about LOCAL protesters, none of whom have committed the crimes and acts that Scientology stated, through Stovall. They need to learn that taking on the cult's fabrications of defamation puts them in a sticky position.
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Are you saying that you strive to manage your own image ? or that nobody listens to you? If either is the case I am not always sure why you are here. But it's nice to have you anyway.

    I don't know how you can not be anonymous (unknown) and have an image or reputation. At least in Chanology it seems to be the consensus that our goal is to expose the abuse of Scientology. But if that was known to the public at large, you get all sorts of paradoxes, don't you ?
  17. Rockyj Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Nope, however I believe there's a lot more to this whole ordeal then we know and believe that Santa Clara County crossed the line between separation of church and state because they allowed one of their county employees to discriminate (reverse racism) against a group of activists by using SCC tax dollars to print hate flyers! SCC did not properly investigate the accusations against ANON that were presented by a member of the targeted so-called religious organization that is nationally known to do whatever it takes to silence their critics!

    As a result I believe the SCC is liable for supporting their employee's actions and for not taking into consideration the separation of church and state.
    The county has no excuse for supporting the outright prejudice's against ANON and can't cover their ass, especially since ANON has plenty of docs to prove them SCC wrong!

    P.T. Barnum (Barnum & Bailey Circus) is "mythically" known for saying, "There's a sucker born every minute!"
    SCC, Delomre and members of Co$ are ALL VERY befitting of this statement.
  18. Belladonna Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    ?
  19. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Post them plox.
  20. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Did you miss the posts saying that info letters had already been sent to the BoS?
    The statements of yesterday made by the 4 ex's puts a human face on things and gets it on public record. IOW, I am fairly certain that the board was made aware of Delorme's sources (and lack thereof) before the meeting.
  21. Herro Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    What makes you think they read the letters? What about the other people present? Did they get letters?
  22. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Speaking at the BOS meeting was necessary, but not sufficient, IMHO. The case in Riverside, even though different, made this quite clear. All legal means (letters, media, etc.) should be used and used again, IMHO.
    I am pleased to see you recovered your true self.
  23. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Couldn't agree more. This needs to be followed up. We don't want a precedent set.
    Legal means? Say, how about protesting? That's legal :D
  24. Herro Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Listen frenchie, the point is that the board members may not have bothered to read the letters and none of the others in attendance received letters. Hence why it was important to talk about the content of the flyer. Watch the presentation again. It was rather disjointed and cout have done a better job of explaining why the flyer is objectionable and what the abuses of scientology have to do with it.
  25. Belladonna Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    So you're extremely concerned and you want to know where to direct your letters to?

    Tell me, how often do board members read letters and how often do they ignore them? Will you be making a draft of what you think should be said at the next meeting?
  26. ryangiggs Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Speeches were a thing of beauty. Wow.
    Very professional.

    I can picture Will in the future, before a congressional hearing:-

    Will: "It messed me up."
    ***camera's flashing***
    Board: gasps!
    DM's pooch: Woof!
  27. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I was there, and Herro makes a constructive criticism. The speeches were eloquent but the context was not set up front for the complete n00b.

    However, several ppl in the audience got the msg with thumbs up and a couple asked questions. We need to bring fliers if we do this again.

    This was a maiden effort by SJ Anon exes. If the SB Statcrashers do this again they can coordinate speeches setting up context up front with following speakers addressing various dimensions.
  28. exOT8Michael Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    How about a protest outside Delorme's office about Scientology's infiltration of the County administration?
  29. Herro Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I already did that. Mods removed it from this thread because it made other people all crazy.
  30. AnonyVix Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Agree with this. Rinse, add more soap and repeat until clean.
  31. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    What makes you think they wouldn't? I'm fairly certain they can read and, if they aren't a bunch of Jeff's, have an interest in what their constituants have to say, I believe it is part of their jobs to pay some sort of attention, my opinion on a moot point.
    Your other questions do not have any bearing on this, it was't a news conference; unless you can show otherwise you're just being goofey and distracting (ya ya, nothing new).
    Delorme was brought up, as was the nature of the accusations, and considering the time constraints it is my opinion that the speakers covered a lot of ground in a very short time, and did a good job of it.
    Someone earlier asked if you could have addressed it better in as short a time, could you? Did you? Would you? Have a go at it and show us how brilliant it was.
  32. AnonyVix Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Don't knock Herro too much on the reading letters part, I too am quite cynical about such people whose job it is to pay attention and read letters. (Those they perceive as "quacks" get only cursory attention.)

    The speeches were excellent, the speakers certainly had their shit together. I sincerely hope they will continue to press this matter as one speaker said.

    Mentioning letters sent and putting them on record will also help if no reply has been received or a fob off reply is received.

    BTW, how long did they get to speak? Seems like none took more than 30 seconds, which is perhaps what make them so good.
  33. rof Member

    You came here to tell us they can read?

    THIS IS WHY we need Herro.
  34. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    At least one of the supes responded personally.
  35. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    How about No.

    "infiltration"? /facepalm

    influence, perhaps. infiltration, no.
  36. Kalashnikov Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    How can you be so sure?
  37. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Focus on Delorme is prolly not a good idea. She can play the victim to great effect and become politically untouchable. tifkk put it well - she is stupid and dangerous.

    I think the focus needs to be on the supes. The question isn't whether they read the letter the question is whether anons will call and build relationships with staffers who are hugely influential on their bosses. We need a lot of anons to call and start talking to them.
  38. adhocrat Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    1:20; 1:02; 0:51; and 1:45.

    County clerk said one minute, the timer said two minutes. Next time, the timer gets it.
  39. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I don't think we need to focus on her either, Will and GDpacman got horn luv'n this flyer is not going to change anything. The average person is not going to associate a school bus bomber/arsonist with someone dancing Ballywood style in front of an org.

    I think the the focus was on the supes, and that effort was heard loud and clear. But do we really need them to further waste taxpayer $'s on an investigation when it seems no harm has been done and the matter has been brought to the BoS's attn. ? It isn't going to hurt to build a relationship w/ the supes but if they don't act because of the people voicing their opinions at yesterday's meeting it isn't the end of the world.

    I say let the supes handle this in their own way, and leave them alone until there is another problem. We don't want or need to go all "Riverside" on them, they already got caught with their pants down, there is no reason to think that they don't care if they are seen to be supporting a cult. The local org doesn't have the deep pockets or the need to have a supervisor on the payroll.
  40. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Duh.

    You came here to fail sarcasm 101?
    Must be a slow morning in the sandbox~
    XP

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins