Customize

23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by TinyDancer, Feb 23, 2010.

  1. grumpus Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Who's "we?"

    I have no use for it. You take it somewhere and get all that use for yourself.

    An honest "Devil's Advocate" is useful; this is someone who takes the opposing side and argues it with good intention. Even an honestly skeptical contrarian is useful. What is not useful is someone who engages in almost nothing other than nitpicking, fallacious sophistry. Co$ does that just fine for themselves.

    A poster such as the "Herro" screenname serves no purpose except to expose it for what it is, as an object lesson. The "Herro" account does not advocate opposing positions by putting forth the best argument for that position. The "Herro" account pretends ignorance and uses spurious logic to derail, discourage, and distract. The "Herro" account does not engage in an honest dialectic; it engages in sophistry.

  2. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Did I say that the speeches were perfect ? No. Can it be better next time ? Yes, certainly. Were there some useful content in your domed post. Yes, and I said it, finding it funny it was domed.

    TL;DR That would be a good opportunity to rethink your strategy. Your constant contrarian rants mixed with trolling might not be as effective as you think. But do as you please.
  3. Consensus Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    This really illustrates how far the critic movement has come, and how little power the cult wields.

    Used to be, they could slander individual critics to the point where many hid, and those who did not came of as crazed nutbags.

    Now, the critics feel safe, confident, and are willing to give impassioned, rational, sensible replies to the 'fair game' tactics in public, to press and to members of government. It's been two years, and while the cult has impressed me by hanging in this long, the BEST they could manage in that corner of the country was to get a flier printed by the local government - and that act inspired this act of courage. Even if the issue dies and nothing more happens, this was a win - because the cult needed and was counting on 'results' from their intricate manipulation.

    If I were OSA, I'd look at this result and realize just how powerless I had become. Of course, they're too brainwashed to see it.
  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I think the speeches were very good, presentation as well as content, especially taking into account the 1 minute time limit. I feel they brought up important issues existing with the flier and they also did some education on Scientology while sticking to the subject matter, demonstrating that Scientolopgy has a motive to influence it. It's true that they didn't provide proof that Scientology was behind this, but that was almost impossible given the time limit and I also feel it's a bit besides the point of the presentation. They stated their position and what they want from the board. If the supervisors decide to look into the matter and have questions I'm sure these will be answered.

    As to Herro's function on this board, it's not so much in the content of his posts, but in preventing this from becoming a closed circle. He certainly doesn't represent what the outside world thinks, but he most certainly doesn't represent what the majority thinks either. I consider him an exercise in bullbaiting or trolling. Something entertaining for a change.
  5. Belladonna Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Do you really think no one else is capable of providing a voice of reason? What about all the other voices he drowns out?

    Did this board dissolve into tinfoil during his many bans? We're intelligent people capable of providing checks and balances. I also would argue that his "good" contributions are much less effective than other people's because of his reputation for trolling and shape-shifting in his arguments.
  6. AnonyVix Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Thanks for this, like I said the speeches were very good, concise and to the point, which is perhaps why without timing it they seemed so short. Go with the 2 min and aim for the 1 seems to work well, also having quality speakers helps too.

    I'd not cut Delorme any slack, she clearly intended this flier to go out as was without any regard to alternative opinion. The flier itself is a bigoted attack on "Anonymous".

    If you replace Anonymous with "Black Community" in the flier it would be obviously bigoted hate propaganda; it seeks to tar a community group with the actions of a few who claim to be associated with it.

    By sanctioning and paying for the publication of this flier Delorme openly supported bigotry, she did exactly what her job title suggests she should not do and that is promote animosity against a community group, that is promote hate!

    This was no mistake, she had ample time to rectify the situation, Delorme is a bigot and should be exposed as such.

    Delorme has no place doing the job she does nor in any position of authority that she could abuse to forward her bigoted agenda.
  7. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Maybe some one should do this and read out the result at the next county meeting. Makes a point.
  8. tikk Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I think you missed my point so I'll back up. The flier does not name anyone so it can't be defamatory toward any individual. It does, however, name a group, namely Anonymous and "disaffected members." The law generally prohibits defamation cases against groups. There is an exception to this general rule, however, where the law recognizes defamation cases against small groups in which the individuals are readily identifiable. And the flier's description of the group it calls Anonymous actually targets local anons and "disaffected members." This argument is strengthened by the fact that she met with individual members, and used as leverage the potential publication, before distributing the fliers.

    Discrimination and establishment clause cases are two different animals, and neither apply here, for too many reasons to fully explore. In short, with regard to discrimination, "Anonymous" is not a group or class that would be recognized--it's not a group defined by race, gender, age, or creed. The establishment clause prohibits any law that tends to establish a religion, and the hurdle here is the absence of any law to be challenged, unless you're referring to the creation of Mckee-Stovall's office itself, which, as a practical matter, would definitely not be viewed as an establishment clause violation (there are dozens if not hundreds similar offices throughout the U.S.).

    More generally, I do think the government favors religion when it creates municipal offices such as Mckee-Stovall's that inevitably side with religious groups in any debate between the group and its detractors. Religion doesn't need help from the government except to the degree it needs to protect religious adherents' right to practice the religion, which right is actually encroached perhaps once for every hundred times religious adherents claim. But as a practical matter, a civil suit claiming that the creation of Mckee-Stovall's office violates the establishment clause is quixotic and futile, given the present state of the law and political atmosphere.

    The only realistic civil suit I see in these fliers is a false light tort, which again, should not necessarily be pursued in court but definitely should be related to the county board, because the county would be a defendant in such a suit. I also think that Mckee-Stovall's use of the fliers as leverage in discussions prior to their publication compounds such liability, and at least was so improper as to require her removal from her office, irrespective of the accuracy of the flier's content.
  9. willhaven720 Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Thanks to all who spoke and for inviting me to speak.

    It was a great experience for me personally. I was so fucking nervous, just trying not to shake. The place was packed (lol no pressure).

    Having to finish everything in the allotted time, we were told we only had 1 minute to speak, which turned into 2 (thank god). And the last part of the speech (when I wasn't looking down at the paper), was something I thought about on the drive up there. So I sped through the written part just to be able to say what I had to say at the end. It could have been a bit more dynamic, but it worked out.

    Thanks to all for the feedback and support. It will be a bit smoother next time for sure.
  10. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    It was good and will be better next time.
  11. RightOn Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    thank YOU Will :)
  12. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors





    No, Thank You.... seriously...


    Your testimony is so important it simply cannot be overstated. Your honesty is powerful and compelling. And you pointed out the end, which was beautiful because it came off real and personal, not reherst or scripted.

    Best of luck.
  13. eddieVroom Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I'm looking forward to it. And don't second-guess what you guys did up there, that was as perfect an example of a public address as I've ever seen. A lot of politicians fail to perform that well at the podium without a lot of coaching and practice. The time constraints forced y'all to cut the wheat from the chaff, and the coordination between you worked beautifully. If I were on that board, I'd be sitting up and taking notice.
  14. willhaven720 Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Yeah, a couple of them were pepping up when I stopped reading from the sheet and started looking them in the eyes. Twas good.
  15. anoninoob Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    So Full of WIN!!!

    Seriously, THAT is how you make comments at a county board meeting. Straight forward, logical and to the point. No rambling, no attempting to list everything bad about the cult. Just specifics on the actions (the flyer) by the county and the cult.

    Serious muthafucking WIN!!

    SoCAl Anons, Study this for your next Hemet/LA public comments.
  16. Antagone Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    As far as I can tell all legal avenues are being pursued. Best way is to start slowly and see what happens - there's only so much can be said in a few moments of speeches and this was a good first blow to help attract media attention and let the BOS see that this issue is not going to be forgotten by Anonymous.

    If they fail to act then it's time to start making more speeches, there's no need to rush to do everything at once.
  17. eddieVroom Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    If anyone really wants to sharpen those skills:

    Toastmasters International - Home

    The next step up IMO is Public Debate. Nothing like seeing a Junior Senator (or candidate) flailing while trying to find a scripted answer for the moment LOL

    edit: one additional thought: Many people practice with a stopwatch. I suggest also using a metronome.
  18. Daisy Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    This is just the beginning for all of us. Could use more help from ex's.

    As I left the podium, I heard someone say thank you. Kept walking and a woman waiting to speak touched my arm and said "thank you". I stood in the back to wait for the others and 2 people wanted to see the flier and asked some questions.

    These days just mentioning scientology gets a reaction.
  19. BigBeard Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    March 2010 Board of Supervisors meetings for follow up:

    Tuesday, March 2 - Board Meeting @ 9:30 am
    Tuesday, March 23 - Board Meeting @ 9:30 am

    BigBeard
  20. Herro Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    See:

    I'm just one faggort. You give me too much credit.
  21. xenubarb Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Just wait until some outraged (yet misled) neighbor pounds on one of the Statcrashers.
    That will be Delorme and Allender's fault. It'd be worth a few bruises, I'd think.
  22. PodPeople Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Daisy, thanks for mentioning this. I know I have moments when it seems like only grand gestures and lawsuits will do. But what you describe is evidence of the groundswell of public opinion as well as the impact of personal testimony and protests, one by one, one county here, in counties and countries around the world.

    It just proves that the goliath, monied war chests of scientology have no defense against one voice echoed by many voices, and it doesn't cost a dime.
  23. Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    What about the specific mention of the Anon who was arrested at a past protest? His charges regarding that arrest were dismissed and he's pursuing legal action against the police involved, and all this before the flyers were printed. Isn't that grounds for defamation when it singles out a particular Anon, even if not by name?
  24. Herro Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    They didn't specifically mention him. They specifically mentioned his charge. It's a small distinction but I'm pretty sure that, from a legal standpoint, it's a very important one when you're talking about slander. Since they didn't name him specifically how would people reading the flyer know who he is? I'm not sure about that, but I think it's an important distinction. Tikk? Am I in the right ballpark or am I just talking out of my ass as usual?
  25. PodPeople Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Pacman: I think tikk answered your question, and you have the answer in your own question. The specific Anon is pursuing legal action in his individual case, but his name was not mentioned in the flyer.

    As to "group" in this instance, anon was indeed a small group, and very specified, and the whole don't protest and I'll not flier thing, that Tikk is saying could make it eligible. In other words, it's two separate cases.
  26. tikk Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    True statements aren't defamatory, but again, could be actionable under false light tort if they intend to mislead with malice; to address Herro's statement, I don't think not being specifically named necessarily precludes a defamation claim, but it would affect damages (you're less injured than you'd otherwise be if you were named).

    A civil rights claim (I'm assuming that's what the arrested Anon is pursuing) against the police is incredibly difficult, no matter what the facts are.

    Keep in mind that I'm not advocating anyone suing anyone; I'm merely offering my opinion on the circumstances, and suggesting that the liability exists which should be brought to the board's attention.

    I think McKee-Stovall recklessly abused her authority as a public official and in first threatening to publish a potentially defamatory flier in exchange for certain individuals targeted by the flier to cease exercising their first amendment rights, and then publishing the flier when members of the group declined her offer. The flier intentionally misleads to cast the protesters in a false light and the protesters are accordingly injured.
  27. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    If this would balloon into a class action lawlsuit for all protest fags against DMS... I'm only dreaming.
  28. Anon123456 Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    slander is the spoken word. libel is written. just for clarity.
  29. exOT8Michael Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    THIS ^^^^^
    Thx tikk
  30. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Tikk, this is great. I would like your opinion on what you think we can ask for and what we can expect to get from the supes.

    There seems to be a consensus for asking for a public apology to be published and distributed door to door in the neighborhoods that were fliered.

    This is basically a political matter so I am wondering what your take is. A consultant I talked to said that we wouldn't get an apology, but at best a "correction of factual error".

    He also said not to criticize Delorme because she is African-American and publicly reprimanding her is out of the question. Even saying she was duped reflects negatively on her. I said, "How about - "Like many other intelligent, caring people she was deceived by John Allender with the usual array of Scientology half-truths and misinformation." He said, "That might work."

    I think we need to look at the situation from the supes point of view for us to ask for effective remedial action.
  31. anonhuff Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    The excuse of being deceived that you are proposing lobbing her way as an out falls flat on it's face when you consider the meeting prior to the flier distribution in which she is informed directly of the facts and/or lack of them on her part.

    At that point she gets no excuses.
  32. Major Boyle Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Tikk,

    The way to nail Delorme is on a Federal Civil rights beef. She offered to take away her criticism as long as Anonymous agreed to be silent. This is consistent with LRH tech.
    Another avenue of legal attack is that she illegally established a religion by handing out Scientology-written fliers. Can you imagine the legal uproar that would have been caused if she'd handed out a Catholic church flyer saying "Abortion is bad" on the taxpyer's nickel?

    If Scientology wants to act like a religion, then it has to accept one of those limitations of being a religion, namely that the government cannot promote a religion. Since Delorme didn't write the flyer ($cis did), she's up shit creek without a paddle.
  33. tikk Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Ugh. I just responded in length and got wiped out by some unidentified internet blip of stupidity. Oh well, try again.

    I think that your pragmatism is well placed, in that you should be considering what is realistic from the board's POV, but that such pragmatism does not necessarily preclude my suggestion to inform the County as to its liability. It's an important piece of leverage in resolving your dispute with the County. Simply put, the County should not be defaming its citizens, or attempting to bargain for their free speech rights, and they should be informed that they are liable on this matter.

    I have no way of knowing what the board would do, and I defer to your consultant on this--I have no way of knowing the board's political leanings, their past actions in similar situations (although they've probably not confronted anything quite like this), their personal relationship(s) with McKee-Stovall, etc. Those things often matter in local politics, but I've no way of knowing the particulars. But in any negotiation, you should put your strengths on the table, and McKee-Stovall's ill-advised decision to republish potential libel as a response to a failed negotiation in which she attempted to stop people from exercising their first amendment rights... that's a strength on your side of the ledger, I believe.

    I don't understand how McKee-Stovall is immunized from this claim by her race in any reasoned discourse. Anyone could have republished that flier but it was her--who else do you blame except her superiors? I don't understand what angle she could take in playing identity politics where you're merely responding to an action she took, and not targeting her for any other reason. I also think it's wrong to presume that she was duped, and it might come off as somewhat insulting if you approached it that way. It's not an 'out' I think anyone would take because it would amount to an admission that one wasn't fit for their job.
  34. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    You suggested we protest the infiltration of the County Council by Scientology. Before we use the word "infiltration", you need to produce some dox or GTFO.

    I'm 100% sure we should not use the word "infiltrate" or any of its forms in our protests until you've produced some dox showing actual infiltration.

    How can I be so sure? Because I, for one, don't want to sound like a moonbat.
  35. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I would think it would be in the County's interests to rein in an employee who wastes County funds on - at best - foolishness. If they fail to do so, who knows what her next faux pas (in the name of the SCC) might be ?
  36. TinyDancer Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    We banned Herro? How did that happen?

    Somebody's going to have to answer for this.
  37. tikk Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    I think a meaningful distinction would be made between promoting religion (your abortion flier hypothetical) and promoting the interests of a religious group(s), which is effectively what McKee-Stovall's office and others like it are set up to do, if the question is whether the establishment clause has been violated. I agree that the line should perhaps be collapsed but I don't think the law would see it that way at this point in time.
  38. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    Excellent! That's brilliant feedback.
  39. Anonymous Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    You're right, PP. Your post reminds me just how POWERFUL, the exes are. Daisy, who only 2 years ago couldn't speak at a protest (I remember <3) just stood and eloquently addressed public officials in front of a sizeable group of her fellow citizens.

    Mag-fucking-nificent.
  40. basil Member

    Re: 23 Feb 2010 - Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

    She wants equality for all, then her race shouldn't come into it - she fucked up, she should get a public bollocking and sacked for it.

    The issue of her race wouldn't come up if she was white - this is what really pisses me off, how so many non-white people "play the victim" when it suits them and people are afraid to call them out on their bullshit.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins