Need history on Injuncture at Gold Base
Fear Not
They said because Gary (Happy Smurf) was with Keith Henson he was "in
association".
They also said that the other 4 anons with Gary are also associated
and would be arrested if they picketed.
Is the injuncture webbed somewhere?
Could you please point me in a direction for more information?
Yes, I've been googling.
David Miscavige is not going to win this.
Here is the report from Enturb.
http://forums.enturbulation.org/121-raids/attention-riverside-cops-banned-anons-raidng-gold-base-29449/
Fear Not
I think Scientology is behind the DDOS at Enturb.
And they just upped the DDOSing.
Can't get on.
How many can Miscavige try to associate with Gary or Keith?
This is fucking illegal.
10 more will take their place.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.
Android Cat
I'd love to see how they think Gary Scarf was in association with Keith
Henson... (Ah, I see. An old picture that they were both in. Yeah, that's
mighty fine police work--as supplied by OSA.)
Was there ever a *permanent* injunction against Keith prior to his
misdemeanor conviction?
Judge OKs picketing of church February 21, 1998, Susan Thurston,
Press-Enterprise
http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1998/02/21/888047199.html
--
Ron of that ilk.
Fear Not
> Henson... (Ah, I see. An old picture that they were both in. Yeah, that's
> mighty fine police work--as supplied by OSA.)
>
> Was there ever a *permanent* injunction against Keith prior to his
> misdemeanor conviction?
>
> Judge OKs picketing of church February 21, 1998, Susan Thurston,
>
> --
> Ron of that ilk.
I don't know Android, but here is a video of what happened yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU4YppPzGis
This has got to be illegal.
Contacting ACLU and the Attorney General.
Enturb seems to be down for me, but that won't stop the harpoons.
feministe
news:77d4e5b8-39ff-4e84...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I reacted at that by sending this specific question to the Riverside Police
Dept, that can be questioned by mail at
http://www.riversideca.gov/rpd/feedback.htm
==
Dear Sirs,
I picketed nine years ago together with some people, the criminally
convicted CULT called scientology, in Florida.
Most of the people there were unknown from me as I came from France. I knew
only that getting scientology convicted of the MURDER of Lisa McPherson in
Florida in 1995 was the intention behind the picket.
There was then a guy called Henson, and we discussed and exchanged some few
mails since that meeting in december 1999.
Now my question: I'm intending to come from France to denounce and picket
the criminal group "Scientology" installed in Hemet under your jurisdiction.
Since some of your team guys have arrested and forbidden few people recently
to picket that group, I would like to know if you intend to arrest and jail
me if I picket.
I need a clearclut answer.
Thank you for adding the federal and state laws at stake, if you consider I
would be forbidden to express my feelings around the cult armed stronghold
of Hemet.
Thank you very much.
Roger Gonnet
===
cultxpt
The solution would be like in Clearwater; anyone who gets tagged as
"in association" with Keith just stay away and that allows others to
protest. That, or go to court.
Patty Pieniadz
"Android Cat" <androi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11545$48d66b86$cf705c94$94...@PRIMUS.CA...
I'm just waiting to see how Arnie and Mary are going to connect dots and
blame this on Patricia Greenway.
Fear Not
So, people should be able to protest if just Gary stays away?
cultxpt
>
> - Show quoted text -
As we all know, the whole injunction thing is a joke. But the police
are taking it seriously. So either you decide to get arrested and
challenge it in court, or you find out who the police think are "in
concert" with Keith and those people stay home. I don't see any other
choices except to just picket elsewhere, which would be my suggestion.
henri
wrote:
>As we all know, the whole injunction thing is a joke. But the police
>are taking it seriously. So either you decide to get arrested and
>challenge it in court, or you find out who the police think are "in
>concert" with Keith and those people stay home. I don't see any other
>choices except to just picket elsewhere, which would be my suggestion.
Or sue for a declaratory judgment that the injunction does not apply
to random strangers in county court. Or, if you for some reason
suspect the local court isn't going to give you a fair shake (I can't
imagine why you might think that), for civil rights violations under
28 U.S.C. 1983. Obviously this would require a certain amount of
hassle, but it would be less inconvenient than making the same
argument from jail.
Android Cat
Even though it's laughable to connect anyone who shows up at Int in
association with Keith, are there any details on the *actual injunction*?
The only one I have details on is a temporary one that the judge blew out of
his court:
Judge OKs picketing of church February 21, 1998, Susan Thurston,
Press-Enterprise
http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1998/02/21/888047199.html
Here's Keith on the one which they seem to be using:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/8898af8b48dee25a
(I like Keith, but he's not a lawyer. Add salt to taste.) Thread:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_frm/thread/98f9c1b470ac05b8/8898af8b48dee25a#8898af8b48dee25a
henri
As far as I know (I may be wrong) there are two injunctions. There is
an injunction (or something of a similar nature) in his probation
terms, preventing him from doing a number of things to Scientologists
including "annoying" them. This was not litigated. It was a
stipulated agreement. I don't see how it could possibly bind anyone
who is not actually acting on Keith's instructions or urgings.
There's also an injunction in Keith's civil case, which he lost by
default under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine or some other kind
of procedural default. Obviously, there's no way that people who have
never even met or communicated with Keith in any way could be bound by
that, and as for Garry Scarff, I doubt being in a 10 year old
photograph with someone constitutes "acting in concert" by even a
completely shit-for-brains concept of "acting in concert."
henri
wrote:
>There's also an injunction in Keith's civil case, which he lost by
>default under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine or some other kind
>of procedural default. Obviously, there's no way that people who have
>never even met or communicated with Keith in any way could be bound by
>that, and as for Garry Scarff, I doubt being in a 10 year old
>photograph with someone constitutes "acting in concert" by even a
>completely shit-for-brains concept of "acting in concert."
This is the Dezotell injunction:
http://buttersquash.net/archives/henson-injunction.pdf
henri
wrote:
Here's the complete document (that's just a check-box form).
http://buttersquash.net/archives/dezotell-injunction.pdf
If you look at the docket and documents on the Riverside County
Superior Court,
http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess/CIVIL/civildetails.asp?casenumber=009673&courtcode=A&casetype=HEC&dsn=
http://tinyurl.com/4hez3p
(Or if this doesn't work go to
http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov and search records for
Riverside Civil and use case number 009673.)
The injunction was actually issued by a judge pro tem in the case, and
you'll notice a fair amount of shuffling of judges, almost as if they
had a choice in the matter and didn't want any one judge getting too
familiar with the case. (Yeah, this is a bit tinfoil-hatty, but I've
seen too much weird shit in these cases to give the benefit of the
doubt to what look like possible shenanigans.)
Fear Not
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:22:05 -0400, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:04:23 -0400, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >>There's also an injunction in Keith's civil case, which he lost by
> >>default under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine or some other kind
> >>of procedural default. Obviously, there's no way that people who have
> >>never even met or communicated with Keith in any way could be bound by
> >>that, and as for Garry Scarff, I doubt being in a 10 year old
> >>photograph with someone constitutes "acting in concert" by even a
> >>completely shit-for-brains concept of "acting in concert."
> >This is the Dezotell injunction:
> >http://buttersquash.net/archives/henson-injunction.pdf
>
>
> If you look at the docket and documents on the Riverside County
> Superior Court,
>
>
> (Or if this doesn't work go tohttp://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.govand search records for
> Riverside Civil and use case number 009673.)
>
> The injunction was actually issued by a judge pro tem in the case, and
> you'll notice a fair amount of shuffling of judges, almost as if they
> had a choice in the matter and didn't want any one judge getting too
> familiar with the case. (Yeah, this is a bit tinfoil-hatty, but I've
> seen too much weird shit in these cases to give the benefit of the
> doubt to what look like possible shenanigans.)
Thank you Henri!
R. Hill
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:22:05 -0400, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:04:23 -0400, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>>> There's also an injunction in Keith's civil case, which he lost by
>>> default under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine or some other kind
>>> of procedural default. Obviously, there's no way that people who have
>>> never even met or communicated with Keith in any way could be bound by
>>> that, and as for Garry Scarff, I doubt being in a 10 year old
>>> photograph with someone constitutes "acting in concert" by even a
>>> completely shit-for-brains concept of "acting in concert."
>
>> This is the Dezotell injunction:
>> http://buttersquash.net/archives/henson-injunction.pdf
What a nasty piece of paper: "... where acts of violence against the
Plaintiffs ... is likely to occur." I can't believe this crap, Keith
Henson has always peacefully protested, there is absolutely no record of
him being threatening to anyone, so what the heck is that "likely to
occur" nonsense?!
>
> Here's the complete document (that's just a check-box form).
> http://buttersquash.net/archives/dezotell-injunction.pdf
>
> If you look at the docket and documents on the Riverside County
> Superior Court,
>
> http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess/CIVIL/civildetails.asp?casenumber=009673&courtcode=A&casetype=HEC&dsn=
> http://tinyurl.com/4hez3p
>
> (Or if this doesn't work go to
> http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov and search records for
> Riverside Civil and use case number 009673.)
>
> The injunction was actually issued by a judge pro tem in the case, and
> you'll notice a fair amount of shuffling of judges, almost as if they
> had a choice in the matter and didn't want any one judge getting too
> familiar with the case. (Yeah, this is a bit tinfoil-hatty, but I've
> seen too much weird shit in these cases to give the benefit of the
> doubt to what look like possible shenanigans.)
--
Ray.
Android Cat
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:22:05 -0400, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:04:23 -0400, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>>> There's also an injunction in Keith's civil case, which he lost by
>>> default under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine or some other
>>> kind of procedural default. Obviously, there's no way that people
>>> who have never even met or communicated with Keith in any way could
>>> be bound by that, and as for Garry Scarff, I doubt being in a 10
>>> year old photograph with someone constitutes "acting in concert" by
>>> even a completely shit-for-brains concept of "acting in concert."
>
>> This is the Dezotell injunction:
>> http://buttersquash.net/archives/henson-injunction.pdf
>
> Here's the complete document (that's just a check-box form).
> http://buttersquash.net/archives/dezotell-injunction.pdf
Thanks! So... Is Ken Hoden back from his spell in the RPF these days? (I
guess the RPF would be Gold for his place of work *and* residence.) And what
about Hillary Dezotell and Bruce Wagoner?
> If you look at the docket and documents on the Riverside County
> Superior Court,
>
> http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess/CIVIL/civildetails.asp?casenumber=009673&courtcode=A&casetype=HEC&dsn=
> http://tinyurl.com/4hez3p
>
> (Or if this doesn't work go to
> http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov and search records for
> Riverside Civil and use case number 009673.)
>
> The injunction was actually issued by a judge pro tem in the case, and
> you'll notice a fair amount of shuffling of judges, almost as if they
> had a choice in the matter and didn't want any one judge getting too
> familiar with the case. (Yeah, this is a bit tinfoil-hatty, but I've
> seen too much weird shit in these cases to give the benefit of the
> doubt to what look like possible shenanigans.)
Yeah, they dug up a retired judge for the criminal trial (with a
since-documented conflict of interest that should have barred him from the
case). And then afterwards, they buried him again...
Robert A. Trujillo seems to have been swapped in just to sign that one piece
of paper:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/2af64fde7e88d1d7
*If* this injunction does fall under the CALIFORNIA CODES CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 580:
580. (a) The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot
exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by Section
425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115; but in any
other case, the court may grant the plaintiff any relief consistent with the
case made by the complaint and embraced within the issue. The court may
impose liability, regardless of whether the theory upon which liability is
sought to be imposed involves legal or equitable principles.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the following types of relief may not
be granted in a limited civil case:
(1) Relief exceeding the maximum amount in controversy for a limited civil
case as provided in Section 85, exclusive of attorney's fees, interest, and
costs.
(2) A permanent injunction.
(3) A determination of title to real property.
(4) Declaratory relief, except as authorized by Section 86.
Of course, *if* it does apply, the permanent injunction isn't just going to
honourably commit seppeku all by itself.
Far easier just to have a party of people who have never been photographed
with Keith. (Good grief!)
henri
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Note: I'm pretty sure that this is the injunction that's being used.
The Anons report language being used by the cops about "500 yards." If
that's true, it's probably the civil injunction, which specifies 500
yards, and not the criminal probation terms, which specify 1000
yards.]
>> Here's the complete document (that's just a check-box form).
>> http://buttersquash.net/archives/dezotell-injunction.pdf
[Snip to Trujillo.]
>Yeah, they dug up a retired judge for the criminal trial (with a
>since-documented conflict of interest that should have barred him from the
>case). And then afterwards, they buried him again...
>Robert A. Trujillo seems to have been swapped in just to sign that one piece
>of paper:
>http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/2af64fde7e88d1d7
Which is simply fascinating. This guy gets swapped in, out of
nowhere, to sign this one piece of paper, which is a Scientology wet
dream. Then he *poofs* never to be seen again. I wonder how a judge
completely unfamiliar with the case was able to adjudicate the core of
the case like that. It smacks of due process violations. Then, as
you point out, there's this.
>*If* this injunction does fall under the CALIFORNIA CODES CODE OF CIVIL
>PROCEDURE SECTION 580:
>580. (a) The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot
>exceed that demanded in the complaint, in the statement required by Section
>425.11, or in the statement provided for by Section 425.115; but in any
>other case, the court may grant the plaintiff any relief consistent with the
>case made by the complaint and embraced within the issue. The court may
>impose liability, regardless of whether the theory upon which liability is
>sought to be imposed involves legal or equitable principles.
>(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the following types of relief may not
>be granted in a limited civil case:
>(1) Relief exceeding the maximum amount in controversy for a limited civil
>case as provided in Section 85, exclusive of attorney's fees, interest, and
>costs.
>(2) A permanent injunction.
>(3) A determination of title to real property.
>(4) Declaratory relief, except as authorized by Section 86.
>Of course, *if* it does apply, the permanent injunction isn't just going to
>honourably commit seppeku all by itself.
I think it should be possible to attack it collaterally on those
grounds, whether or not Keith was successful in doing the same.
Assuming there's not some bizarre reason that this case is unique
somehow and can violate the normal rules, this injunction appears to
have been granted completely illegally and would (I would hope)
therefore be null and void. However, it's still illegal to violate
even a void injunction. The contempt of court may exist separate from
the invalidity of the injunction.
This injunction also has some fairly disturbing terms. For instance,
look at the last line.
"VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER IS A CRIME PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 422.9 OF
THE PENAL CODE."
The one you'll find Googling this statute is not the current statute.
The one in effect at the time this injunction was issued has been
since repealed.
---
Former § 422.9, relating to punishment for violation of order
prohibiting injury, threats, or property damage to another because of
specified beliefs or characteristics, was added Stats 1987 ch 1277 § 4
and repealed Stats 2004 ch 700 § 17.
---
SECTION 422.9 OF THE PENAL CODE.
(e) The court shall order the plaintiff or the attorney for the
plaintiff to deliver, or the county clerk to mail, two copies of any
order, extension, modification, or termination thereof granted
pursuant to this section, by the close of the business day on which
the order, extension, modification, or termination was granted, to
each local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the
residence of the plaintiff and any other locations where the court
determines that acts of violence against the plaintiff are likely to
occur. Those local law enforcement agencies shall be designated by the
plaintiff or the attorney for the plaintiff. Each appropriate law
enforcement agency receiving any order, extension, or modification of
any order issued pursuant to this section shall forthwith serve one
copy thereof upon the defendant. Each appropriate law enforcement
agency shall provide to any law enforcement officer responding to the
scene of reported violence, information as to the existence of, terms,
and current status of, any order issued pursuant to this section.
(f) A court shall not have jurisdiction to issue an order or
injunction under this section if that order or injunction would be
prohibited under Section 527.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(g) Actions under this section shall be independent of any other
remedies or procedures that may be available to an aggrieved person
under any other provision of law.
(h) In addition to any injunction or other equitable relief awarded
in an action brought pursuant to subdivision (b), the court may award
petitioner reasonable attorney's fees.
(i) Violation of an order described in subdivision (d) may be
punished either by prosecution under Section 422.7 of the Penal Code,
or by a proceeding for contempt brought pursuant to Title 5
(commencing with Section 1209) of Part 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. However, in any such proceeding pursuant to the Code of
Civil Procedure, if it be determined that the person proceeded against
is guilty of the contempt charged, in addition to any other relief, a
fine may be imposed not exceeding one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or
the person may be ordered imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding
six months, or the court may order both the fine and imprisonment.
(j) Speech alone shall not be sufficient to support an action under
subdivision (a) or (b), except upon a showing that the speech itself
threatens violence against a specific person or group of persons; and
the person or group of persons against whom the threat is directed
reasonably fears that, because of the speech, violence will be
committed against them or their property and that the person
threatening violence had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.
(k) No order issued in any proceeding under subdivision (a) or (b)
shall restrict the content of any person's speech. An order
restricting the time, place, or manner of any person's speech shall do
so only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the peaceable
exercise or enjoyment of constitutional or statutory rights,
consistent with the constitutional rights of the person sought to be
enjoined.
---
[*17] SECTION 17. Section 422.9 of the Penal Code is repealed.
[*18] SECTION 18. Section 422.9 is added to the Penal Code, to
read:
§ 422.9.
All state and local agencies shall use the definition of "hate
crime" set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55 exclusively,
except as other explicit provisions of state or federal law may
require otherwise.
---
Could someone now violate this repealed law by violating an injunction
that incorporates the statute? I'm not sure, but I'd bet some
Scientology lawyer (using an Assistant DA of Rivercide as a stooge)
could make that argument with a straight face, forcing a defendant to
pony up a defense.
There's also the issue that a person who unknowingly violates an
injunction like this is guilty of a "hate crime," a particularly
reprehensible kind of crime greatly frowned upon by society, even
though they may not have had any state of mind sufficient to
constitute "hate," and may not have even had any of the motivations
generally required for a conviction of a hate crime.
No wonder they dragged in some clueless idiot to sign this paper and
then shuffled them back out of the case!
>Far easier just to have a party of people who have never been photographed
>with Keith. (Good grief!)
Well, at this point, a number of Anons have now been seen with Garry
Scarff, who was photographed once 10 years ago with Keith Henson.
Clearly, this proves they are all in a gigantic conspiracy together.
One thing about picketing Gold is certain, though. Doing it gets you
on David Miscavige's PERSONAL shit list, and the cult will pull out
all the stops to go after you.
realpch
I shouldn't think so. If they had the picture of Gary all ready for the
event, they have pegged Gary as knowing all "anonymous" because he was
at a picket, and therefore no anonymous people can picket Gold.
Amazing.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Out_Of_The_Dark
> "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:11545$48d66b86$cf705c94$94...@PRIMUS.CA...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Fear Not wrote:
> >> Anons were stopped yesterday from protesting at Gold Base.
> >> They said because Gary (Happy Smurf) was with Keith Henson he was "in
> >> association".
> >> They also said that the other 4 anons with Gary are also associated
> >> and would be arrested if they picketed.
>
> >> Is the injuncture webbed somewhere?
> >> Could you please point me in a direction for more information?
> >> Yes, I've been googling.
>
> >> David Miscavige is not going to win this.
>
> >> Here is the report from Enturb.
>
> > I'd love to see how they think Gary Scarf was in association with
> > Keith
> > Henson... (Ah, I see. An old picture that they were both in. Yeah,
> > that's
> > mighty fine police work--as supplied by OSA.)
>
> > Was there ever a *permanent* injunction against Keith prior to his
> > misdemeanor conviction?
>
> > Judge OKs picketing of church February 21, 1998, Susan Thurston,
> > Press-Enterprise
> >http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1998/02/21/888047199.html
>
> > --
> > Ron of that ilk.
>
> I'm just waiting to see how Arnie and Mary are going to connect dots and
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go have another donut, Patty. You're wasting your brain on such pipe
dreams.
John Dorsay
> Robert A. Trujillo seems to have been swapped in just to sign that one piece
> of paper:
> http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/2af64fde7e88d1d7
Trujillo also appeared long enough to summarily dismiss Keith's
motion to correct judgment on July 19 2007, when Keith was
incarcerated in the Rivercide jail.
http://75.28.114.15/Cache/902544392/06403603-Page0-2.pdf (may need a
login cookie from open access -
http://public-access.riverside.courts.ca.gov/OpenAccess).
It's worth recalling that the jail somehow lost/never received court
orders to transport Keith to the court for his court dates. In this
case, Keith's request for a continuance was denied in his absence
and that was that. I guess Keith should consider himself fortunate
he wasn't found in contempt for his failure to appear.
It's not clear how much of this requires tinfoil to explain, and how
much is just a result of the everyday malice, corruption, and
ineptitude that Rivercide County has become infamous for.
John
John Dorsay
It is perhaps notable that Trujillo appears to have signed the order
two weeks before the hearing that Keith was not permitted to attend.
It is perhaps more notable that this is not at all unusual in
Rivercide. The arrest warrant for Keith's failing to appear was
also signed in advance.
John