OK, so you read it and I too am enjoined. Additionally, the other named defendants are enjoined. However, can anyone think of a "church" (sic) that is enjoined as follows in paragraph 4: "Further, the Church is enjoined from committing any acts of harassment or violence against any defendant". Maybe Judge Penick now has the impression that Scientology is a repeat offender.

:-) Earlier tonight, I posted that I thought this was a big win for LMT. However, I was subsequently informed by the LMT President, Stacy Brooks and LMT's counsel, John Merrett that the LMT have already filed for an emergency stay of Judge Penick's order in Tampa at the State Appelate Court for the Second District and is expecting a definitive ruling Friday December 1, 2000.

From my own perspective, I consider paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 just the kind of leash that Scientology should always be kept on. If OSA plans to continue their Nigerian, Swiss, UK, Boston, New Hampshire etc. harassment of me and any "agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with me", then they better get ready to have Judge Penick mediate the global harassment against me and some other people being orchestrated by Scientology in direct violation of this injunction.

There is a set of color coded exhibits to Judge Penick's injunction that resemble a Rubrick's Cube which I will have to post to ABS tomorrow, but in the meantime here is the text of the injunction.

Bob Minton IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL NO. 99-7430il-CI-8
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
VS.

LISA MCPHERSON TRUST, INC.,
JESSE PRINCE, GRADY WARD,
ROBERT S. MINTON, JR., STACY
BROOKS, JEFF JACOBSON,
PATRICIA GREENWAY, PETER
ALEXANDER and TONY BEZAZIAN,
Defendants.
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION #2 This cause having come on before the Court upon the Petitioner's Verified Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Injunctive Relief and after three days of hearings, the viewing of sixteen videotapes, three hours of closing arguments, the review of numerous pleadings and cases, the Court hereby enters its order. All parties were present or were represented by their attorneys of record.

FINDINGS OF FACT On the 2nd of December, 1999, this Court entered its Amended Temporary Injunction (hereinafter referred to as "ATI #1") enjoining Richard W. Howd, Jr., Petitioner, and Robert S. Minton, Jr., Respondent. Subsequent to the entry of ATI #1, the time expired for the enforcement of the injunction and Petitioner moved for an order granting its motion to drop and add parties. On the 5th day of October, 2000, this Court entered its order granting the removal of Richard W. Howd, Jr. as Petitioner and in his place, adding Church of Scientology Flag ServiceOrganization, Inc., a Florida corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Church"), as the Plaintiff. Plaintiff also moved to add as Defendants, in addition to Robert S. Minton, Jr., Lisa McPherson Trust and Jesse Prince, Stacy Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander and Tony Bezazian. The Defendants are picketers or persons who possess different ideological beliefs than the Church.

The aforesaid ATI #1 was entered because the Court found that the original parties thereto were engaging in the dangerous and threatening practice of "in-your-face" picketing, shouting, yelling and other acts of violence which threatened the health and safety of the individuals and other persons utilizing the public ways.

After viewing the videotapes entered into evidence and hearing the testimony of witnesses all subsequent to the entry of ATI #l, it is blatantly evident that the parties hereto cannot peacefully coexist in close proximity to each other. The videos evidence violent and dangerous practices threatening to the safety and well-being of parties hereto and to members of the public at large. The videos also show an instance, between Robert S. Minton and a member of the church wrestling, grappling, groping and rolling on the public sidewalks. It is obvious that the parties will suffer irreparable harm unless a mutual injunction is entered.

LAW Injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the Respondent than necessary to provide complete relief to the Petitioner. Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994); Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979).

In drafting orders of injunctions, "precision of regulation" is demanded.

NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963).

Parties seeking injunctions assert a violation of their rights; the Court hearing the action is charged with fashioning a remedy for a specific deprivation, not with the drafting of a statute addressed to the general public. Madsen.

An injunction, by its very nature, does not address the general public, but applies only to particular parties, regulating their activities, and perhaps their speech, because of their past actions in the context of a specific dispute. Madsen.

The Court entering an injunction involving First Amendment rights must strive to enter a content-neutral injunction. In evaluating a content-neutral injunction, the governing standard which courts must apply is "whether the injunction's challenged provisions burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest".

In public debate, citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Boos v, Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988).

In drafting an injunction, the Court must take into consideration the state's strong interest in ensuring the public safety and order. The Court must consider such things as promoting the free flow of traffic on public streets and sidewalks, and the protection of property rights of all citizens. Madsen.

Injunctions in the State of Florida shall be binding on the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys and on those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction. FIa.R.Civ.P. 1.610; Channell v. Applied Research, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4`" DCA 1985); Dad's Properties, Inc. v. Lucas, 545 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989; Xavier J Fernandez, P.A. v. Sun Bank of Tampa Bay, 670 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

CONCLUSION Inasmuch as both the Petitioner and the Respondent have engaged in and continue to engage in the dangerous and threatening practice of seeing how close one another can get to each other while picketing each other, have blocked or inhibited the free flow of foot traffic on the public sidewalks, have blocked the flow of traffic on the public roadways, have inhibited the egress and ingress of the parties from their respective buildings, and have physically touched or attacked each other, it is imperative that all parties must be mutually restrained. After hearing all of the testimony, viewing the evidence, reading the petitions, the complaints, and court cases, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. An immediate Temporary Injunction is entered against the Defendants Robert S. Minton, Jr., Lisa McPherson Trust, Jesse Prince, Grady Ward, Stacy Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander and Tony Bezazian enjoining them, their members, officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction (1) from coming within ten (10) feet of any member of the Church; (2) from blocking the path of any member or any motor vehicle of the Church; and (3) from physically or by any other means inhibiting any Church member, any member of the general public, or any motor vehicle, from entering or leaving any properties owned and/or operated by the Church.

Further, the Defendants are enjoined from committing any acts of harassment or violence against any member of the Church.

2. The Defendants Robert S. Minton, Jr., Lisa McPherson Trust, Jesse Prince, Grady Ward, Stacy Brooks, Jeff Jacobson, Patricia Greenway, Peter Alexander and Tony Bezazian, their members, officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this injunction, must ONLY picket, protest and/or exercise their First Amendment Rights in the areas designated in ORANGE on the diagrams of the Church's properties. (SEE: Composite Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated here into this Order.)

3. The provisions of paragraphs #1 and #2 shall be binding on each and every Defendant, his, her, or its officers, agents, servants, employees, and on those persons or entities in actual concert or participation with him, her or it who receive actual notice of this injunction.

4. An immediate Temporary Injunction is entered against the Plaintiff Church, enjoining it and its members, officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with it who receive actual notice of this injunction (1) from coming within ten (10) feet of any Defendant; (2) from blocking the path of any Defendant or any motor vehicle of any Defendant; and (3) from physically or by any other means inhibiting any Defendant, any member of the general public, or any motor vehicle, from entering or leaving any properties owned and/or operated by Defendants.

Further, the Church is enjoined from committing any acts of harassment or violence against any Defendant.

5. The Church and its members, officers, agents, servants, employees and those persons and entities in actual concert or participation with it who receive actual notice of this injunction must ONLY picket, protest and/or exercise their First Amendment Rights in the areas designated in GREEN on the diagram of the Trust property. (SEE: Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated here into this Order.)

6. The provisions of paragraphs #4 and #5 shall be binding on the Church, each and every member of the Church and/or its officers, agents, servants, employees, and on those persons or entities in actual concert or participation with the Church who receive actual notice of this injunction.

7. This TEMPORARY INJUNCTION #2 shall be in full force and effect for 180 days from this the 30th day of November 2000, or as modified by further order of this court.

8. Any violation hereof shall constitute contempt of court, punishable by fine or imprisonment.

9. No bond shall be required for the issuance of this Amended Temporary Injunction since the injunction is issued solely to prevent the physical injury, harassment, or abuse of natural persons.

10.This injunction is valid and enforceable in all counties of the State of Florida.

11.Any sworn law enforcement officer may assist in the execution or service of this injunction.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida, this 30th day of November 2000, at 13:45 hours.

Signed by
Thomas E. Penick,
Circuit Judge
6th Judicial Circuit
Copies furnished to:
F. Wallace Pope, Jr., Esquire
John Merrett, Esquire
Bruce G. Howie, Esquire

Go Back