Note to Anonymous re: Clearwater picket
cultxpt
about the permanent injunction against certain named critics:
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/injunction.htm
The problem with this unconstitutional prohibition of free speech is
that if anyone is considered to be "in concert" with the named
parties, then they are covered by the injunction too. If they are "in
concert" with any of them, then the restrictions in the injunction
would apply.
So, my suggestion to Anonymous is to just disassociate yourselves
with any of us, and if we happen to show up, tell us to our face that
you're not "in concert" with us.
The only ones named that I know of anywhere near you are Peter
Alexander, Patricia Greenway, and Jesse Prince. Jesse seems to have
bowed out of the fray, so I don't think you need worry about him. I'm
sure Peter and Patricia understand the need to keep their distance.
I'll be 2200 miles away minding my own business.
At any rate, if some Scientologist comes out and slaps you with
this injunction, you'll be forewarned about it and know that it
doesn't have anything to do with you and is just a scare tactic. IANAL
but that's how I read it.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>I see Anonymous is planning a picket in Clearwater. I hope they know
>about the permanent injunction against certain named critics:
>
>http://www.lisamcpherson.org/injunction.htm
>
>The problem with this unconstitutional prohibition of free speech is
>that if anyone is considered to be "in concert" with the named
>parties, then they are covered by the injunction too. If they are "in
>concert" with any of them, then the restrictions in the injunction
>would apply.
> So, my suggestion to Anonymous is to just disassociate yourselves
>with any of us, and if we happen to show up, tell us to our face that
>you're not "in concert" with us.
My suggestion is to wear Jeff Jacobsen, Grady Ward, Bob Minton, Jesse
Prince, Wise Beard Man, Stacy Brooks, Peter or Patricia, etc. masks.
Associate yourselves with them, and publicly proclaim that you're
acting in concert with them.
This injunction should be one of the reasons Anonymous is even
involved in the Scientology problem.
Anonymous should challenge the injunction, and be ready to challenge
Scientology in court on it.
Do not go cute or chickenshit on this issue. Confront it.
> The only ones named that I know of anywhere near you are Peter
>Alexander, Patricia Greenway, and Jesse Prince. Jesse seems to have
>bowed out of the fray, so I don't think you need worry about him. I'm
>sure Peter and Patricia understand the need to keep their distance.
>I'll be 2200 miles away minding my own business.
> At any rate, if some Scientologist comes out and slaps you with
>this injunction, you'll be forewarned about it and know that it
>doesn't have anything to do with you and is just a scare tactic. IANAL
>but that's how I read it.
I am not a lawyer also, but I say if there was ever a case for civil
disobedience it is the injunctions the Scientology cult has been able
to con or corrupt wog courts into granting over the years. And the
Clearwater injunction is ripe for disobeying.
Such injunctions deprive unnamed persons of their civil rights into
the future.
Scientologists have moreover demonstrated beyond any doubt that they
will testify falsely in courts of law in order to deprive people of
their civil rights.
If Anonymous or anyone else is really going to protest/picket in
Clearwater, use the injunction as a reason for being there. Understand
it. Be ready to talk to the media about it. Embarrass Scientology and
Scientologists about it. Embarrass the court about it.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
<ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 08:32:11 -0800 (PST), cultxpt <cul...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I see Anonymous is planning a picket in Clearwater. I hope they know
>>about the permanent injunction against certain named critics:
>>
>>http://www.lisamcpherson.org/injunction.htm
>>
>>The problem with this unconstitutional prohibition of free speech is
>>that if anyone is considered to be "in concert" with the named
>>parties, then they are covered by the injunction too. If they are "in
>>concert" with any of them, then the restrictions in the injunction
>>would apply.
>> So, my suggestion to Anonymous is to just disassociate yourselves
>>with any of us, and if we happen to show up, tell us to our face that
>>you're not "in concert" with us.
>
>My suggestion is to wear Jeff Jacobsen, Grady Ward, Bob Minton, Jesse
>Prince, Wise Beard Man, Stacy Brooks, Peter or Patricia, etc. masks.
>Associate yourselves with them, and publicly proclaim that you're
>acting in concert with them.
I've rethought this. I think just wear WBM masks, and act in concert
with him.
I believe that just acting in concert with Wise Beard Man is enough to
disobey the injunction. And who or what in downtown Clearwater would
not want to act in concert with him?
With enough WBM masks, he'd be legion too.
Sort of giving a face to anonymity.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
efish
Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
> My suggestion is to wear Jeff Jacobsen, Grady Ward, Bob Minton, Jesse
> Prince, Wise Beard Man, Stacy Brooks, Peter or Patricia, etc. masks.
> Associate yourselves with them, and publicly proclaim that you're
> acting in concert with them.
>
> This injunction should be one of the reasons Anonymous is even
> involved in the Scientology problem.
>
> Anonymous should challenge the injunction, and be ready to challenge
> Scientology in court on it.
DON'T DO THAT!!
holy motherfucking shit... that is terrible advice!
anonymi, one thing that you must *not* do is to get in court with the cult.
because then you are on their turf, they have the money to break you. or break
at least a few of you. never give them an excuse to sue you.
do whatever you do by being... wise. consider all outcomes and act carefully,
intelligently.
listen to mark bunker and jeff jacobsen.
-e
Mirele
>
> My suggestion is to wear Jeff Jacobsen, Grady Ward, Bob Minton, Jesse
> Prince, Wise Beard Man, Stacy Brooks, Peter or Patricia, etc. masks.
> Associate yourselves with them, and publicly proclaim that you're
> acting in concert with them.
This is amazingly STUPID advice. I'm not surprised to see it come from
you, Gerry, considering that you are not a lawyer, and have further
demonstrated your incompetence in law through the handling of your own
court case.
Since I don't know who Anonymous is, and am in fact rather bewildered
as to who Anonymous is and why Anonymous has taken such an interest in
$cientology, I wouldn't presume to tell Anonymous what to do. I would
just point out again that Gerry Armstrong is absolutely the last
person one should be taking legal advice from, considering that he's
done such a stellar job <*snark*> on handling his own case.
Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
John Dorsay
> In article <sntbq3pgarhamqebl...@4ax.com>,
> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>> My suggestion is to wear Jeff Jacobsen, Grady Ward, Bob Minton, Jesse
>> Prince, Wise Beard Man, Stacy Brooks, Peter or Patricia, etc. masks.
>> Associate yourselves with them, and publicly proclaim that you're
>> acting in concert with them.
>>
>> This injunction should be one of the reasons Anonymous is even
>> involved in the Scientology problem.
>>
>> Anonymous should challenge the injunction, and be ready to challenge
>> Scientology in court on it.
>
>
> DON'T DO THAT!!
What efish said!
> holy motherfucking shit... that is terrible advice!
>
> anonymi, one thing that you must *not* do is to get in court with the cult.
> because then you are on their turf, they have the money to break you. or break
> at least a few of you. never give them an excuse to sue you.
They also have their own judges and prosecutors in some jurisdictions.
Not that they care if they win in court. "The purpose of a lawsuit
is to harrass."
John
wheat...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:55:02 GMT.
> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> Wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:38:01 GMT, Gerry Armstrong
> ><ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>
> Bad advice, very very bad advice.
Recently there has been some discussion amongst Anon that we should
distance ourselves from WBM at little lest he be tarred with the same
brush as us. As such WBM masks wouldn't be such a good idea. Also we
would like to remain as an independent entity so that we can generate
interest in the ways that we're used to. We have the greatest respect
for Mark and what he does and we will be listening to his advise but
we don't want it to be seen that he is our leader/mascot. Anyway,
we're too busy being controlled by the German supersekrit service to
be able to have Mark as our mastermind :P
Michael Pattinson
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 08:32:11 -0800 (PST), cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com>
Very bad advice here.
Surprised at it, frankly.
MP
cultxpt
>
> If Anonymous or anyone else is really going to protest/picket in
> Clearwater, use the injunction as a reason for being there. Understand
> it. Be ready to talk to the media about it. Embarrass Scientology and
> Scientologists about it. Embarrass the court about it.
>
> © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org
I don't think it's fair to try to get Anonymous involved in a court
case right out of the gate. Since it seems many of them are young
people, they are probably even poorer than us, if that's possible.
Being dragged into court when you can avoid it is a total waste of
time and money.
If I could afford it, I'd go after this injunction in court because
it is definitely unconsitutional. But I can't, so I don't.
Anonymous wants to do things their way. I don't think one of those
is winding up in court.
Friendly Xenu
> Anyway, we're too busy being controlled by the German
> supersekrit service to be able to have Mark as our mastermind :P
LOL! My secret Nazi ear implants are ringing.
---
"Starbucks: drink the coffee. Don't break the windows." -- C
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html?imw=Y
Out_Of_The_Dark
> I see Anonymous is planning a picket in Clearwater. I hope they know
> about the permanent injunction against certain named critics:
>
> http://www.lisamcpherson.org/injunction.htm
>
> The problem with this unconstitutional prohibition of free speech is
> that if anyone is considered to be "in concert" with the named
> parties, then they are covered by the injunction too. If they are "in
> concert" with any of them, then the restrictions in the injunction
> would apply.
> So, my suggestion to Anonymous is to just disassociate yourselves
> with any of us, and if we happen to show up, tell us to our face that
> you're not "in concert" with us.
> The only ones named that I know of anywhere near you are Peter
> bowed out of the fray, so I don't think you need worry about him. I'm
> I'll be 2200 miles away minding my own business.
> At any rate, if some Scientologist comes out and slaps you with
> this injunction, you'll be forewarned about it and know that it
> doesn't have anything to do with you and is just a scare tactic. IANAL
> but that's how I read it.
Jeff, I hears a rumor of sorts that Patricia actually did go to the
protest in Clearwater and the reception by Anonymous was not what she
expected.
Do you know anything about this, if it's fact or rumor alone?
barb
I do, and it isn't any of your business. Anonymous was win. Patricia was
win. Your little vendetta against Patricia is EPIC FAIL.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
I can haz Legion?