Many thanks wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:30:59 -0800, barb <bwarr1@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Many thanks barb, makes quite chilling reading doesn't it

> >Here's Graham's post:
> >Subject:
> > No More Pickets/Photos At Gilman Hot Springs?

> <snip>

Indeed it does...for the moment. However, our side will find a way around this tactic eventually, which will leave the cult a harder challenge to impose censorship on a supposedly free society. Oh, and it'll leave one more thing the cult is gonna really hate down the road, yet another record of its true attitude towards free speech, which no amount of glossy pamphlets extolling free speech support will conceal.

Keith knows this. He makes a move, the cult knee-jerks into action. After the dust has settled (no wig powder for OUR judges!) what's left is solid evidence of Scientology's tactics and motivations. They leave glowing, radioactive footprints wherever they go, whatever they do. Trying to cover it up by vomiting floods of public relations material which proclaims WE'RE NOT LIKE THAT! REALLY! may have some affect on the mentally lazy, but burying its true nature under piles of booklets and brochures is as futile as cats burying their bizness, if you know what I mean. You can't see it, but there's a certain tang of cat wasabi in the air.

If I had to pick one hackneyed phrase to label all this, it would be: "GIVE THEM ENOUGH ROPE, AND THEY'LL HANG THEMSELVES." Or is it, "Time Wounds All Heels?"

Cheers,
--
Rev. Barb
Church of Xenu, San Diego
Chaplain, ARSCC
http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm

"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign: terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business opportunity.

$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide." -Chris Leithiser

On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:22:06 -0800, barb <bwarr1@cox.net> wrote:

>Many thanks wrote:

>> > No More Pickets/Photos At Gilman Hot Springs?

[Cult attempts to abuse permanent injunction against Henson.]

>Indeed it does...for the moment. However, our side will find a way
>around this tactic eventually, which will leave the cult a harder
>challenge to impose censorship on a supposedly free society. Oh, and
>it'll leave one more thing the cult is gonna really hate down the road,
>yet another record of its true attitude towards free speech, which no
>amount of glossy pamphlets extolling free speech support will conceal.

Note that while a sheriff vehicle did show up, Graham had already left. It still hasn't been determined what would happen if the cult attempted to invoke this permanent injunction against an "agent" of Keith, that is to say, anyone who attempts to picket the dwarf's fascist theme park in the desert. Not that I blame Graham for leaving (just attempting a solo picket there at all shows perhaps overly-large huevos), but we don't really know what the sheriff's deputy (or sheriff) would have done, if anything.

The cult has a long history of frivolous attempts to claim that injunctions against Keith Henson somehow magically apply to everyone on the planet, and very little actual success imposing their magical interpretations of injunctions and the "agents" and "actual concert" language on reality. Graham, as a former attorney of Henson, might be in a worse boat than someone entirely unrelated to Henson, but I'm sure he knows that this injunction does not actually apply to him.

(I'm sure he also knows, though, that the corrupt California courts in Riverside don't really seem to care all that much for obeying the law and you could very well end up having to appeal out of the banana republic style Riverside "justice" system. Without significant funds, this isn't something I'd suggest, although I believe that with such funding and adequate representation, a picketer would find vindication, at excessive expense. Brrrr. Is that a chilling effect?)

ptsc

ptsc wrote: >
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:22:06 -0800, barb <bwarr1@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Many thanks wrote:
>
> >> > No More Pickets/Photos At Gilman Hot Springs?
>
> [Cult attempts to abuse permanent injunction against Henson.]
>
> >Indeed it does...for the moment. However, our side will find a way
> >around this tactic eventually, which will leave the cult a harder
> >challenge to impose censorship on a supposedly free society. Oh, and
> >it'll leave one more thing the cult is gonna really hate down the road,
> >yet another record of its true attitude towards free speech, which no
> >amount of glossy pamphlets extolling free speech support will conceal.
>
> Note that while a sheriff vehicle did show up, Graham had already left.
> It still hasn't been determined what would happen if the cult attempted to
> invoke this permanent injunction against an "agent" of Keith, that is to say,
> anyone who attempts to picket the dwarf's fascist theme park in the
> desert. Not that I blame Graham for leaving (just attempting a solo
> picket there at all shows perhaps overly-large huevos), but we don't
> really know what the sheriff's deputy (or sheriff) would have done, if
> anything.

Righty. The sheriffs ALWAYS get called, and thus have to show up. I think some of them as individuals have a clue, but that does little good when their department does not. During one picket at Gold, a very pleasant officer came to our little band of hikers after paying a visit to the guard station. He asked for me by name! (of all things...humph!) The silly culties at the gate had shown him a copy of their absurd hate page on me (www.religiousfreedomwatch.com) as "proof" that I'm a dangerous crinimal. The officer didn't take it very seriously; in fact, he just smiled, shrugged, and said, "That's Golden Era for ya!"

However. The next time Gold Base is picketed, I will stick around to speak to the inevitable sheriff to see just where this frivolous Keith Konnection Komplaint will lead.

I would like to know something beforehand, though. If any California lawyers would like to enlighten me, is an injunction valid if it's not served? And does having some clam in a security monkey suit read it out loud count? >
> The cult has a long history of frivolous attempts to claim that injunctions
> against Keith Henson somehow magically apply to everyone on the
> planet, and very little actual success imposing their magical interpretations
> of injunctions and the "agents" and "actual concert" language on reality.
> Graham, as a former attorney of Henson, might be in a worse boat than
> someone entirely unrelated to Henson, but I'm sure he knows that this
> injunction does not actually apply to him.
>
> (I'm sure he also knows, though, that the corrupt California courts in Riverside
> don't really seem to care all that much for obeying the law and you could
> very well end up having to appeal out of the banana republic style
> Riverside "justice" system. Without significant funds, this isn't something
> I'd suggest, although I believe that with such funding and adequate
> representation, a picketer would find vindication, at excessive expense.
> Brrrr. Is that a chilling effect?)
>
> ptsc

It is. I'll make sure to bundle up before going out there. Tanking up on snickerdoodles first will help keep the core temperature at a comfy 98.4. (Marcab internal temps may vary)

--
Rev. Barb
Church of Xenu, San Diego
Chaplain, ARSCC
http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm

"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign: terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business opportunity.

$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide." -Chris Leithiser

On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 07:13:50 -0800, barb <bwarr1@cox.net> wrote:

>However. The next time Gold Base is picketed, I will stick around to
>speak to the inevitable sheriff to see just where this frivolous Keith
>Konnection Komplaint will lead.

I'd advise taking some precautions first. I would not advise doing this solo. I would advise doing it with at least one other picketer and a non-picketing witness. I would also talk to a bail bondsman and have his card available, as well as the amount of any likely bail available in cash. If you're really flush, already have a lawyer retained. This isn't all that likely, but you should certainly plan on the possibility of needing one.

My view of this injunction is that you can not possibly be acting in concert with Keith nor are you his agent, and I think that would be the view of any sane person. However, we aren't dealing with sane people, we are dealing with a criminally convicted cult and in at least some cases, their paid lackeys in the worldwide joke called the Riverside County Superior Court (otherwise known as the Best Little Whorehouse in California).

ptsc

ptsc wrote: >
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 07:13:50 -0800, barb <bwarr1@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >However. The next time Gold Base is picketed, I will stick around to
> >speak to the inevitable sheriff to see just where this frivolous Keith
> >Konnection Komplaint will lead.
>
> I'd advise taking some precautions first. I would not advise doing this
> solo. I would advise doing it with at least one other picketer and a
> non-picketing witness. I would also talk to a bail bondsman and
> have his card available, as well as the amount of any likely bail
> available in cash. If you're really flush, already have a lawyer
> retained. This isn't all that likely, but you should certainly plan on
> the possibility of needing one.

All excellent advice, petey. I wouldn't picket Gold solo, they might pop me in a bag and hang me from a tree for pinata practise. Amusingly enough, I grabbed a stack of matchbooks from a cafe which are all printed with King Stahlman Bail Bonds information. The cash...well, I'll just have to pass on that one. The amount of money I make playing the accordian on street corners is enough to get me by, but allows for few frivolous expenses such as bail! Perhaps I should join a mariachi band; people pay THEM to shut up! >
> My view of this injunction is that you can not possibly be acting
> in concert with Keith nor are you his agent, and I think that would
> be the view of any sane person. However, we aren't dealing with
> sane people, we are dealing with a criminally convicted cult and
> in at least some cases, their paid lackeys in the worldwide joke
> called the Riverside County Superior Court (otherwise known as
> the Best Little Whorehouse in California).
>
> ptsc

Who is this "Keith" of whom you speak?

--
Rev. Barb
Church of Xenu, San Diego
Chaplain, ARSCC
http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm

"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign: terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business opportunity.

$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide." -Chris Leithiser

In article <3DC1F573.D26D380B@cox.net>, bwarr1@cox.net says...

One difficulty I'm having with this 'injunction' is that, although Graham had 'it' read to him, noone has seen it.

Nor does it seem likely to me that any actual injunction would be on 'Elliot Abelson's letterhead'.

Beyond the silliness of such an injunction all by itself, I'd hope that by now Graham had some actual evidence of its existence, beyond having 'it' read to him by a Scientology 'security officer' who attempts to hide his name, and, like all official Scientology agents, could be expected to lie by default.

*Is* there even any injunction of *any* kind, and if so, what are its terms?