23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

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

I suspect your ass is involved.

Every person within the SJ Anons and exes who is aware of which one individual was arrested - and possibly any scilons who'd been told about him by the cult - was informed by this flyer that he was a sexual offender, etc. It's a small group to be sure, but that' doesn't prevent it being libel.

inb4tikkalreadyansweredandI'mwrongandHerro'sassisn'toblamethistimeandAnngetsherjolliesbypointingthisoutadnauseum

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

Yes,
but can Herro's ass be charged as a sexual offender?
Or at the very least, a sexual predator.

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

Added that video the Silence is Betrayal ning.

That was some of the most on-topic well articulated commentary I have ever seen delivered in a political forum. Well done to those involved. Those not-involved should take notes because that was a terrific example of doin it rite.

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

Nice. But you need to change "country board" to "county board" in the video description on the ning.

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

Trufax Tikk. As a lawyer you know that because the anons knew who was being talked about that could satisfy the publication and damages requirements for the cause of action. What they said on the flier wasn't true though right? Cuz that's kind of a big fuckin deal. If it was then no case.

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

Maybe I missed it, but I'm still wondering if Delorme got fired, then county wouldn't be liable, could say she acted outside laws and policies without their knowledge.

You gotta know someone this obtuse and incompetent has been proving it on the job more than once and likely for some time.

In pursuit of getting full justice, which I agree would be great, don't overlook at what this one sci attempt has produced: Protests not stopped. At lease a few neighbors pissed off at Sci, or at least now educated what they're doing. And the BofS of Santa Clara and other officials and residents got an earful of testimony that's hard to ignore. I'll bet that reporter that was there, thinking he/she got stuck with yet another boring assignment, got a little energizing education too.

I'm betting more than one in attendance couldn't resist googling Will Haven, as he suggested. Almost worth the price of admission if Allender has to pay full price for his sec checks (lol).

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

It's not my desire to see Delorme fired. it is my intention to bring her actions to the attention of the County and let them decide what should be done. As i've said before, she was doing what she thought right. But, since the result was not right, this needs to be looked at critically by the County.

As for the reporter, she was the one who interviewed Mike last year(?) so she has a clue or two about anon.

Even I googled Will after that, since I'd never read the sher dog thread. Never heard of sher dog, shows how out of the loop I am.

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

I'd beg to differ that she did was she thought right. For one thing, she knows her history in civil rights, and this kind of tactic was used often in that movement. Plus she was advised to take legal counsel before enacting and obviously didn't. Last, in the kind of department she was in, there would be very exacting, details of her responsibilities as well as legal boundaries and policies, which she didn't follow. but hey, glad you googled!

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

If Delorme thought what she did was right, she is absolutely the wrong person for the job she holds.
She failed on so many levels it is difficult to enumerate.
In fact, I can think of nothing she did properly in the entire chain of events to date.
She made poor decisions at every step.

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

Unless you happen to be her boss, who cares what you think. Maybe her boss should decide what to do.

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

I am her boss.
Prove me wrong.

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

Thanks.

It's registered in Vermont.

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

Thanks for posting, Delorme.
How are things working out for you?

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

In the end she tried to make a deal with one of the Anon's that followed up with her the next day about making changes to the flyer. I call it black mail = look out that could be construed as a racist remark in her world.

What ever is up her craw, is her undoing and now SCC's. I don't know where
this is going but we are not going to walk away. Thank you for the support and love.

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

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding she did run it by the BS before issuing it.

As for what I said about doing right, I wasn't clear. I think by her understanding of the situation she was doing what she felt was right. that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, but I prefer to not judge people and their motives. I can never see into their heads. but I can look at the consequences and decide it was bad. That's what I think happened here. If Delorme comes around to our side, great, if not, I'll continue to oppose her actions.

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

This is an important aspect of the issue.
That would make them responsible for the legal exposure as well.
It would be much more difficult to just scapegoat Delorme and declare the matter addressed.
They will be inclined circle the wagons and stonewall as the pols have done in Riverside, if what you said is correct.

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

Actually, not her immediate boss. Posted a ling a while back on Board of Supervisors meeting in January, indicating interviewing candidates for what sounded like her dept and her exact job title. Also, dir of that dept, delorme's immediate boss, made comments about juniors who had caused a lot of problems in the past due to either lack of experience or training. As well, Board was mulling combining her dept with another, due to budget restraints.

All this before the ex's testimony! oh dear

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

Wait, "Originally Posted by adhocrat
I may be wrong, but it's my understanding she did run it by the BS before issuing it." Dox on this? cuz that's a whole other hill of beans.

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

I suspect that is based upon a sentence in the Allender email to the effect that the flyer was fully backed by the council "members".

This is a preliminary issue to be clarified with the Supes.

Edit: Yes. Here it is.

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/123-...ail-about-combating-anonymous-san-jose-61179/

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

Thanks, Tiny. I would think the issue of Allender's statements about sci's having county employee badges would be something those supervisors should know as well. Impersonating govt officials is serious biz. Even tho delorme verbally said to an Anon that it wasn't true, she should have immediately reported it to her boss, if not the board, who in turn should have contacted Allender and taken action.

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

How did that all work out? I'm guessing that the "up to 10" county workers got pulled off of this little detail at the last minute if they were ever really going to show up at all. Too bad for Delorme, she could have used the excercise.

Allenders wishes to see a couple of hundred scientologists from each (srlsy, each) of the three local orgs turn up for this canvassing is just delusional.

So outside of the three stooges that made it into the video, is there any kind of rough guess as to how many people were knocking on doors that morning or have been continuing to canvas the neighborhoods since then?

If, as it appears, these flyers were indeed printed by the county, we're entitled to an explanation as to how many flyers were printed (save for any that may have been photocopied by "interested parties"). The county should also be required to state the inventory of remaining flyers from which we can deduce the number of flyers distributed.

What, if any (at this point) responsibility does the county have to collect and cease the distribution of any flyers which have not yet been distributed? What degree of liability does the county assume by not halting additional distribution of the flyers now that the defamatory nature of the flyers has been placed into public record with the Board of Supervisors?

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

incog712,

I witnessed along with Adhocrat two county employees walking towards us with a fairly large box ( filled to the top with flyers had to be several hundred). The woman gave me this pissy look when she read my sign and Adhocrat asked them if they were $cilion$, she said no they were from the county, (one woman & one gentleman, no attitude from him and even replied to my good morning). Adhocrat asked if he could take a flyer, he took 5-6, and she gets pissy and told him he asked for A flyer, and he said well I took more then a flyer. He was filming them and she asked if she was being filmed he said affirmative. Demanded he stop and I told her this is a public sidewalk so leave.
Watched them walk up the drive way into the $cilion$ building. They had to have left the back way, they would have had to pass us again. The flyers were distributed by $cilion$ in our area. I can't confirm or deny whether the 2 county employees assisted.

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

Yep, and I also asked them a bit aggressively if they knew about the anti psych policies. They moved away faster.

lol

it was pretty funny.

I saw at least five or six different people, including what looked like a father daughter combination.

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

I would like to pay for some quality fliers to be printed. Better than what they had.

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

IMHO you did well lad. In fact it was very good, all the speakers were.

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

Epic win idea.

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

It would be good to know if:
- they are "from the county"; in that case, why are they bringing the flyers (and not the other way round) ? Did they distribute them ?
- they are scientologists; problem of impersonation.

Good to know in both cases, IMHO.

TL;DR If not done yet, it would be good to ask practical questions to the county, e.g.: how many flyers ? how many emplyees ? etc.

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

While taking a look at the BofS Meeting Agenda for March 2nd March 2, 2010 Board Agenda - SCC Public Portal I found a clarification on the speakers time limits:

The 2min time limit is for items on the Agenda for that meeting:

The 1min time limit is for Public Issues NOT on the current Agenda. Note that a request can be made to add the issue discussed to a future agenda for discussion:

I believe paying attention to the difference in time limits at future BofS meetings will a) reinforce the point Anons & Ex's aren't a bunch of disruptive rablle rousers, and b) help Anon's requests during Public Comment to get their concerns on future Agendas for full discussion.

BigBeard

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

BB
There was a clock on the wall to the right of the speaker's POV. It was set for two minutes, not one. So although you're right about the info given (I had called the County Clerk the day before and she also said one minute) it looks like reality is different.

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

That part was especially awesome, you did an excellent job man

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

Either that, or someone forgot (or was to lazy) to reset it when discussion moved from Agenda items to Public Comments.

I'm just saying that staying within the published time limits, which the County Clerk was probably going by, will make a better impression than pushing the issue because someone didn't reset the timer.

And creating a good impression goes a long way towards getting a request to add an issue to a future Agenda honored.

BigBeard

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

BigBeard, agreed, solution is to prepare for 1 minute and if you get 2 anyway have something extra to say - or get the matter taken up as an agenda item. It certainly is serious enough to be on the agenda.

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

updates, please

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

I think you did an awesome job - you all did and thank you for speaking up.

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

Reminder for anyone local who may be interested in following up the last meeting, or possibly requesting flyer related issues be made agenda items to allow responses to questions from the board:

March BofS meetings are 9:30am Tuesday, March 2nd (tomorrow) and Tuesday, March 23rd.

BigBeard

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

A bizarre aspect of the county's involvement against the protesters is their involvement at all. Have counties been involved in passing out literature against other "annoying" protesters such as anti-gay religious nuts protesting outside churches who perform same sex marriages, or anti-abortion groups with photos of late term fetuses outside health clinics, or basically any other group with strong opinions who wants to make sure that everyone knows about them? Why is the county interjecting itself in protests against the Church of Scientology? Is there any precedent for this?