FLAG DOWN 2014 DERAIL THREAD

^ oxymoron

My second point is what the police will do with it. Let's skip what would happen to WBM, a named person who apparently now lives in Clearwater, and lets deal with Anon. If you haven't seen to video, apparently the CWPD didn't have the injunction on record. That has almost certainly changed since then. The police told us that their officers are not lawyers, and would not make judicial rulings on the sidewalk. I can't imagine that has changed, and CWPD officers remain non-lawyers. They never stopped us from protesting, or walking anywhere. The didn't arrest anybody in all our protests, and I think this injunction means nothing in terms of how they police their city. Reply to citizen complaints, respect people's rights, keep people safe, don't block traffic, and let the courts settle the rest. Neither can they tell you that the injunction doesn't apply to you, or that you are protesting in a way that keeps you safe. It's just not their job.

Part 3 in a bit.

This issue is you have no dox to support your claims.

Sincere question - Why do you care so much to continue this discussion/debate/argument? If you want to hang with the LMT Injunctionists, host your own party and send them the golden tickets you think they deserve.

So if the police are probably not going to intervene, what could happen to you? What happened to me is I was served a subpoena to appear before Judge Pennick (now deceased) along with 12 other protesters. I could have ignored it since I don't live in Florida, but I chose to appear. We had a full day of contempt hearings, with Wally Pope serving as the prosecutor, Bob Minton had a lawyer from Boston, and the rest of us were represented by John Merritt. The incident they were charging me with was walking on the sidewalk, while PK walked in the other direction. We passed each other without contact or interaction, but within 10 feet. They claimed this placed me in contempt. About half-way through the trial they asked to dismiss my charges. I think the first set of videos they had didn't go as well as they expected, so they pulled me out of the batch. The funniest video was one where they claimed Tory was blocking a parking lot entrance by talking to somebody in a car. But then a UPS truck used that entrance, so there was obviously plenty of room. In the end, Bob was fined $500 I think because he could afford it, and he was the most confrontational protester. Tory was fined $50 for sitting in Santa's chair outside the Bank to have her picture taken. Everybody else was not guilty. So, could they find some reason to serve you to appear? It could happen no matter how you conduct yourself during a protest. Maybe it would be thrown out because you're not subject to the injunction, or maybe something else would happen.

Part 4 to come.

OMG how many parts are there going to be. Blah.

Seems like he wants to relive the old days and pretend he's still relevant. Although why he seems to be determined to pretend it's not a potential cult legal tool (Shawn Lonsdale anybody?) and ignores that the cult are looking for anything they can use to throw at protesters these days is beyond me.

The cult faked a fucking bomb threat to try getting an injunction in March 2008, although that may have been mostly out of panic looking back in hindsight. Wondering what they'll try pulling out in response to this May. We got a little glimpse in the run up to Dublin Offlines in 2012, and we were helped by the protective factor that they have little power here to fuck with us. Even bigger conference right in the heart of Clearwater? They'll not hold back on that one.

But my issue here, and the reason why I have such disdain for Rod specifically, is that this rose-tinted glasses shit is painting an inaccurate picture of what modern-day cult protesting is like. He makes reference that no one was arrested during his time protesting – while being, apparently, ignorant that the cult have managed to get a Clearwater anon arrested with their shit. Why he seems determined to play down the LMT injunction is as puzzling as it is dangerously moronic advice.

@ Rod

Fuck off already

It's the derail thread, nobody should be reading this anyway. Cope.

Guessing is not proof. Dox dear, you know where you are.

Hi folks. I'd like to bore you all to tears, all while minimising the risk of a certain inunction that the cult have used historically to fuck with people. I'm sure my minimising of the risks of the injunction is in the best interests of a certain conference event being organised.

ikr? Because the cult has never ever done anything that didn't makes sense but served their purpose.

So how bad is it protesting under the injunction? Not bad at all, actually. No picketing or protesting in the blue areas, but every building has an orange area where you are allowed to protest. Stay at least 10 feet from any Scientologist, but that also means they can't come within 10 feet of you. No elbows in the ribs, no counter-picket signs hitting your head, no toes stepped on or being kicked, no blowing out of vigil candles, no stolen signs. You can't block their path, or block their motor vehicles. Hold your sign down when you're in a blue zone and walking to an orange zone. No "raucous noise" that can be heard inside their buildings. Don't enter any of their buildings. Contact the police before you protest. It wasn't a problem for any of us, except for the court part.

That's all. Tell me where I'm wrong.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

I sincerely urge you not to read it. Derail thread is here for a reason, right? It's irrelevant, off-topic. Nobody should care. I hope the event goes well.

I refuse to protest under any injunction. Period.

I will not be under any obligation, legal or otherwise, when I protest. To allow myself to be would be a win for the cult and I do not allow the cult to win.

I'm not suggesting that you do. I'm suggesting that you may not know until weeks later that you were.

Not acceptable. What part of I don't want to be served with the injunction do you not understand?

I guess you could run away from them. It could work.

Seriously, that response is contemptible.

I just don't see any other choice. If they hand it to you, or drop it at your feet, it's the same thing. How do you protest and avoid service at the same time? I hope you succeed in that.

Since you are sincere. Why do I care? I care about protesters, and Clearwater. We held our own parties. I met a lot of fun people, and I learned a lot. I don't know what a golden ticket is. Wonka tickets? I don't get the reference.

I think I understand this one. Here is the injunction, both the text and maps. http://www.lisamcpherson.org/injunction.htm

This arguing about the injunction is hopefully all moot. I don't think any of the named parties will be there in May. I would suggest, though, that if Patricia Greenway wants to give you all some money, don't accept it.

Mark Bunker might show up, but he's NOT A PROTESTER. The injunction applies to people who are "in concert" with one or more of the named parties PROTESTING.

So the injunction is probably the least of your worries. Besides, you don't think Scientology will think of some other way to bug you?

And finally, I'm not impressed here where Rod tries to civilly make some points, and all the rest of you want to do is call him names and yell at him. Very strange.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BORING BLAH

Whassup, Nigger?

Hello all together .
Unfortunately What I write now has no incontrovertible facts. Maybe one of you has the ability to create clarity here .
At first the status:
Scientolog has had a lot of movement in Germany in the last months . There are various locations , more or less closed. It was the office equipment and furniture are observed packed and were loaded .

Obviously everything is stored centrally , because none of it was shipped back or loaded into a plane.

This development was the occasion to ask fo me with a few people after .

If my infomation , hear say as I have said up to now agree , then Scientology is very much building in Germany to buy. This goes well beyond verscheidene companies where Scientologists sit on high places.

If what I hear is true ! Then Scientology will change its DEutschland and Europastategie very strong. The will , it seems at the moment to build a German counterpart to Clearwater.

Officially created new apartments with shops but all in the hands of Scientology.
This means that the build is probably an unstable bridgehead in Germany !

If one has the possibilities then checked by please . I myself am going to try the tenders for the site investigation and building permits to sift through.

Greetings from Germany

If you did care you wouldn't be spreading misinformation. Moreover, if you genuinely cared then you wouldn't persist doing such AFTER several examples of inaccuracy in your postings were brought to your attention. If you genuinely and sincerely gave a shit you wouldn't be minimising the risk of the injunction, particularly given that it has been explained to you how the cult has historically succeeded in using it.

Trying to pretend you 'care', when your postings represent contemptible and dangerous advice, would be laughable in any other case that didn't involve the risk of someone getting fucked.

How is it strange? Rod seems determined to post inaccurate and dangerous advice, and whether he does so civilly or not doesn't change the fundamental problem that what he is posting is inaccurate and dangerous.

Let's spell out the elephant in the room here. The cult knows who is organising the conference, and should they succeed in tying the injunction to them what do you think will be the outcome? What Rod seems to miss (which I can only conclude is deliberately so at this stage) is that the cult doesn't need to have any validity to their shenanigans – they just need to get enough shit into the mix to fuck things up. Unless you have megajewgolds for lawyers who could fight any injunction serving, an inevitability if people make the mistake of assuming Rod isn't full of shit, then you defence of this clown for being 'civil' is fucking laughable.

At least one noob has made the mistake of assuming Rod knows jack about this. That's one person too many given the stakes and the cult's track record – and if dispensing with a bit of civility helps hammer this point home then I'm all for it.

That someone posts 'civilly' while posting dangerous advice doesn't change the inaccuracy of said advice. That someone claims to care, when their advice will lead to someone getting caught in the cult's legal net, is contemptible and needs to be called out in the strongest bluntest terms possible to avoid any doubt in those not fully familiar with the background and the key facts of the case.

Rod's been around the block long enough that he should know he's talking smack. Whatever his personal malfunction is on this issue I don't care – he needs to be strongly disabused of his shit for everyone's benefit. You've been around the block long enough to that you should also know the score. Now tell me – how many times in cult-critic history have people been fucked because of a 'nice-nice' approach where people were hesitant to call bullshit when needed? How many times have people deferred to reputation or social pressure when they should have been calling 'bullshit' from the roof-tops? Don't pretend you don't know better Jeff. You are quite capable of understanding why a pretence of caring and a pretence of civility does no good when such is being used to push dangerous and inaccurate advice.

My information is accurate. If yours is different, yours is inaccurate. There is room for different predictions about what would happen in the future, but that's not the same thing. I was there, you were not. You can read the injunction, and see that it says what I have described. If you want, we can go back to all the SPT articles about the protests, permits and injunctions that we had. I'm sure they will verify what I have said.

You are a liar. I think you know what I wrote is true, and cling this "inaccuracy" claim. I don't think it's a matter of interpretation. You are lying.

Your information about what happened to you in the past during one of your few protests is not relevant. The game changed, anonymous changed it. Anything other than what you have personally experienced is conjuncture on your part and does not constitute information. Bring us a legal document and a statement from the CW chief of police that backs up what you have to say about what "may" happen and this conversation is over. Understand where you are. We deal only in facts. Live it, learn it, love it or gtfo.

Anons will continue to argue with you until you bring dox.

Well, it's either incorrect or it's correct but irrelevant, one or the other but not both. I am not organizing a protest in Clearwater, so I will not be contacting Chief Holloway. Documents from the future are notoriously hard to come by, but I'll keep an eye out for you. If you need more documents from the past I don't know which ones they are, so please let me know and I will be your research librarian for a while.

Here's the list of people on the injunction. Why don't you just call and ask is they're coming? If not, then all your worries are over.
And to help you out, no I'm not coming.

Lisa McPherson Trust (disbanded)
Jesse Prince
Grady Ward
Robert S. Minton, Jr. (deceased)
Stacy Brooks
Jeff Jacobson (misspelled, should be Jacobsen)
Patricia Greenway
Peter Alexander
Mark Bunker
Troy Bezazian (misspelled, should be Tory)

You seem to be ignoring the Shawn Lonsdale incident. You also seem to be ignoring the cult's track record of throwing legal shit at people, even if said legal shit was meritless, and cause said people inconvenience. For anons generally, and a conference like this specifically, that's an issue that you seem to be wilfully and deliberately ignoring.

You also state that no one was arrested in your time, and appear to have ignored where Amax tried to explain to you that she was arrested. By clinging to your nostalgia and ignoring facts like this means that your advice is inaccurate, misleading and dangerous when it comes to protesting for anons in Clearwater. It really is that simple, and I fully intend to tell you to fuck off until you start getting a clue.

You seem to be wilfully ignoring the elephant in the room. What the injunction actually means in a legal sense isn't necessarily the issue – rather the issue is what the cult can do with it. If you want to pretend that the cult don't have a track record of twisting TROs and injunctions then fuck off an do it elsewhere where people won't be in a position to swallow such shoite. Even a meritless serving on those involved in organising the conference is a potential nightmare – and any reminiscing on your part that allows this to be ignored is problematic to say the least.

Don't really care what you think about me, just as long as you fuck off and stop posting advice that could get someone fucked. Maybe those folks in Clearwater who have been protesting on the ground in Clearwater who have pretty much told you the same things I have are liars too?

How can someone so OG be so fucking clueless on this??

That's dangerously naïve to be honest. Do you remember that Patricia is a nutjob and how hard the Clearwater anons had to work to get her to fuck off back in the early days of Chanology? Are you aware that Bunker seems to be waltzing around Clearwater these days? Are you aware that you are one of the easliest still-active posters on WWP which, in the cult's eyes, could reasonably be argued to be the planning hub for the conference?

There's three potential timebombs right there. Now please enlighten me why you think ignoring these sorts of facts is giving good advice???? Seriously, you fucking know better – so what gives?

So basically what I said is completely accurate. What I said about the injunction is true, what I said about past protests is true, everything true. You feel an accurate history is "misleading" in some way. I don't get that at all. I don't recall any advice that would hurt anybody. If you can refresh my memory, that would be great. I recall saying don't do anything illegal. Are "timebombs" the same as "innacuracies"? I'm really trying to number them 1) 2) 3).

1) Sean Lonsdale. I didn't say anything about this, so I doubt this is an innacurracy.
2) Amax got arrested. I didn't say anything about this, so I doubt this is an innacurracy.
3) Scientology uses restraining orders and injunctions inappropriately. I agree with this. I never denied it.
4) Patricia is a nutjob. I didn't say anything about this, so I doubt this is an innacurracy.
5) Mark lives in Clearwater. He says he does. I haven't spoken to him in a long long time, but I like his videos.
6) I am easliest. I don't know what that means. I'm not named in the injunction - see Jeff above.

Sure.

"If Scientology starts handing out that old injunction, the police will probably do nothing to enforce it, or to tell you that it's not enforceable."
"My point is that the police will not interpret the injunction on the sidewalk for you, allowing or preventing a protest based on whether you are or are not subject to it."
"They told me they wouldn't, and they never have. Police are not lawyers, and this is not a criminal matter."
"[In response to a noob request for advice] Talk to Ray Emmons. He's on Facebook and pretty easy to find. He was on CWPD back in the Cazares days."

As Amax noted: "You know you mention Gabe Cazares in your most helpful post. Do you even know who our first CPD liaison officer was? It was Gabe Cazares' godson Lt. James Steffens CO of Dist. II. Gabe's godson is actually the very first person to tell our Cell to beware of the LMT INJUNCTION. Lt. Steffens made sure we knew the law and we made sure to be completely transparent with him."

Now fuck off and take your dangerous advice with you.

Had you read my post you'd have seen that particular portion was quoting Jeff, and hence was addressing what Jeff wrote. Was supposed to be earliest, which Jeff is.

All true statements.

You take advice as dissent and discussion as attack. Not a good way to go through life.

themadhair

Best comeback of 2013. This joint was going to shit without you.

I see no reason to continue this discussion since there seems to be no way either party is going to impact the opinion of the other.

Keep in mind if they ever do try to bring the injunction into play again:

Scientology can't just shout "You're it!" and hand you papers. It has to be by the right person.

Who were the four or more individuals or agencies agreed upon?