Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

I've seen stranger cases than Scientology go through court. But yes, it sounds very strange, which is why documentation is to fundamental.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Still our biggest problem; scientology is unbelieveable.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

I do believe that should be unbelieveably unbelieveable. My fav quote evar!!!

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

I think they call it unbelieveableness.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

With apologies to .

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

I don't think AGP has a chance in hell of getting out of the pansy stomping thing. It was a dumb move, especially filming it.

This is not to say that AGP is dumb or anything. I'm condemning the action, not the person.

But it's pretty cut and dried that he was intent on vandalizing the flowerbed, and it's also pretty provable that the pansies (if not the area where they were planted) belong to the cult.

Anything else being talked about is a red herring and irrelevant.

My two cents. Can't give more, I'm broke and don't have the balls to put up a Paypal ling....lol

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Actually, I'd bet the pope will win. If indeed the easement is 50' from the center of the highway, then the place he was standing on is PUBLIC land, meaning that 1) the cult couldn't plant the plants there and 2) You can't be arrested for walking on public lands.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Regardless of where the pansies were, pansies don't grow wild like that and it can be proven that they belonged to the cult. It can also be proven that AGP vandalized them.

It didn't matter where the pansies were, AGP had no right to vandalize them in any case. They weren't HIS to stomp.

Not to mention his intent to destroy them is also provable. Intent means a lot. It isn't as though he accidentally stepped on them.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

You missed my point. The flower (as such) are not on the cult's property. They had no legal right to plant them on public land. Indeed, depending on the local laws, the cult may have to rip the pansies up anyway.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

It will be educational, just how the Scilon attorneys will attempt to lie about, or otherwise deflect attention from a factual issue.

But they've been successful before in tying up legal proceedings like this, using various tactics like motions to suppress, attacking evidence unfavorable to them, endless questioning of opposing witnesses or experts, filing documents at the last minute, and so on.

When this occurs, GB will really need the support of the Anon community to withstand this, as he will be upfront in a war of litigation (facing an team of adversaries that will employ every dirty trick and every dirty trickster they can think of).

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

I didn't miss your point. You're not seeing mine.

It isn't disputed that the pansies belong to the cult. AGP destroyed the pansies.

That's all that matters.


Whether the cult had the right to plant them there is a different matter entirely.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, and I totally agree with "Your Mom".

Here's a quick analogy to help you, Boyle. Two scenarios:

1. You decide to leave a bike on your private driveway. Someone subsequently comes onto your property and deliberately damages it.

2. You leave a bike on a public sidewalk, and someone subsequently damages it.

Assume that in both cases, there is video evidence showing the person responsible for the damage, and that the damage is willful.

LEGALLY:

In BOTH the above cases, the person who damaged the bike is liable - certainly on a civil basis and possibly even criminally liable. It doesn't matter whether your bike is on private or public land - it is YOUR personal possession, and NO ONE has the right to deliberately damage it.

The ONLY difference is that if the person who damaged your bike came onto private property, they may ALSO be guilty of trespassing.

Whether or not the pansies are on public or private land is a separate issue.

Then again, I accept that you may have a greater legal knowledge that I do. In which case, perhaps you would be kind enough to cite some references?

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Third scenario: you decide to leave your bike in the middle of a public street. Someone runs into it with their car and damages it. I'm not sure what the consequences are on either side but you're putting others at risk by leaving your bike out there.

The problem with AGP's case is that it was a willful act of destruction. If the damage was accidental or even caused by negligence, there would be no case.

Graham still has work to do, however, and that is to counter Co$'s outrageous repair estimates (umm, didn't they already have the work done? With slave labor, no doubt?) to keep the charges at misdemeanor vandalism rather than felony vandalism.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

This is why I specifically mentioned that the bike in the analogy was deliberately (and not accidentally) damaged.

So, going back to AGP's case, AGP is completely culpable and strictly liable for his deliberate damage. There is no legal defense to his actions (have we ruled out insanity, as that could be his best bet at the mo, lol)

Obviously, the replacement quotation for the flowers looks extremely excessive, and could be countered by estimates obtained by AGP.

It goes without saying that AGP's prior skirmishes with the Cult (which resulted in legal measures being placed against him by the Courts) will not help this case.....

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

You're right, it's all about intent. Unfortunately that will render moot any arguments about whether the flower bed blocks the public right-of-way (the "sidewalk," as it were).

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as that. It's not as if those flowerbeds were put there on public land accidentally. They deliberately put them there to obstruct a public right of way and block foot traffic.

I think that the intention here is probably what hurts AGP most. It's clear that he was gleefully stomping them with the specific intent of destroying them. I think, though, that if he'd simply ignored the pansies and used the public property by walking across it, as the public is entitled to do, he'd have a better shot.

I'm just leery of the concept that people who happen to live on property next to a highway, who want to block public foot traffic or specifically, stop people from protesting in the public property next to their property, just have to plant flowers on the strip of highway, then have their pet cops prosecute anyone who walks across them.

I think it's likely to come down how you predict it, though. He's likely at least to be fined, and then, the cult will probably try to use it against other protesters, especially if, as seems likely, their attempts to use that ordinance to block protesters ultimately fails.

I'd rather see an acquittal just because I hate to see the cult win anything, but it would hardly be the injustice of the century.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

I am thinkingthe cult trespassed onto public land, that is is an issue. Any property, materials, etc... they put there is for public use.

It's not about flowers ruining your life.

Look, if you were walking down all 13 miles or whatever.. and walked past Golden Era and happened to have walked on some flowers because you are too unskilled to walk in the berm or on the concrete edging. I'm 100% sure you would not get arrested or charged.

Of course this road has like zero foot traffic because of where it is.

This was a protester at a place that already has had multiple arrests... and someone starts deliberately destroying property. (Regardless of where it was)... Imagine another protester set down a stereo and someone starts smashing it cause it is "on public property".

Also, why aren't you pitching a fit over the driveway?? There are stone curbs and landscaping around the pavers. You idiots can't comprehend that the fucking driveway is on public property and you aren't bitching about them "blocking" assholes walking up the road? Gee, no handicapped ramps... but but this is public property. Some moron walking in the middle of the desert might trip on the curb placed on public property to screw with pederstrians! You could scrape your ankles.

If you think someone has illegally planted stuff in the EASEMENT (google it faggots) you notify the proper authority depending on what kind of road/easement. You do not start cutting down trees because the appear to be on "public property". And YES a tree growing in the easement is identical to planted flowers.

Go fuck yourself. This isn't a public park, it's an easement. I hope this is a troll, but the average reader of this forum appears to dumb to understand simple concepts and will believe this shit, just like they believe OSA-proofing their sig is a good idea.

Ok, because no one really gets this.. You know how many people have grass in their "tree lawn" which is this "public" easement.

You can't go around pouring gasoline on someone's tree lawn because it is public and they shouldn't have planted grass there. If there are community standards about what is allowed to be planted there, then the city will fine/notify you.

What AGP did is equivalent to taking a sledge hammer to the sidewalk in front of the local library because he was having trouble walking on it.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Golden Era has been utilizing that flower bed for decades with no problems, that I'm aware of, from Riverside County.

Irrespective of all the issues regarding easements or whether it is or isn't Scientology property, the point is that AGP willfully vandalized a flower bed. He knows it. I know it. And Scientology knows it.

Elliot Abelson claims to have video of me yelling at AGP to get out of the flower bed (which is true) & physically trying to force him out of the flower bed (not true), and has threatened to call me as a hostile witness to testify against AGP in his trial. I told him to fuck off and die.

If the flower bed had belonged to a Christian church, I suspect their would be no much discussion whether it was or wasn't appropriate for AGP to do what he did, but because it involved Scientology property (the flowers), some anons are more accepting of what AGP did, but how did this incident further the message that those that identify with Anonymous are peaceful, law abiding, protesters of an evil cult??

AGP believed he had a rational reason for marring the flower bed; I didn't agree. I suspect he will be found guilty of the vandalism & the jury won't give a rat's ass about Scientology's view on homosexuality... but I could be wrong.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

If people posting in this thread were obliged to pay let's say 1$ per post, the pansies would have been paid for long time ago...

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

If it turns out that is public property, wouldn't it be legal for a person to uproot the pansies and then plant his own garden? What gives one persons plants more of a right than another persons plants.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Just go read what Smurf said, which was excellent.

There is no what-if-it-turns-out. Fact is that the pansies were in the public right-of-way which is really (technically) a privately owned parcel of land with an easement for the roadway. It is not on "public property" but it is in the public right-of-way. The land is owned and must be maintained by the property owner, but the city/county/state easements allows for utilities and roadway and sidewalks.

At any rate, the fact of where the flowers were is totally irrelevant. If the county had an issue with a law being broken, they can deal with it. But, you cannot recklessly destroy someone's property.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

This isn't about whether the cult had the right to plant pansies there or not. THEY are not the ones in court for doing such a thing.

AGP IS in court for vandalizing the cult's pansies. It can be proven they are the cult's and it can be proven that he did so maliciously.

Case freaking closed.

If someone wants to test whether the cult had the legal right to plant pansies there, that will require an entirely different court case.

The law isn't going to see it any other way. Period.


People...use your HEADS.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Perhaps you should google encroachment. I think it was Tiny Dancer that found that particular law.

Pam Walls is in charge of enforcing that law.

The property line is in dispute.

It may very well be an encroachment.

"If someone wants to test whether the cult had the legal right to plant pansies there, that will require an entirely different court case.

The law isn't going to see it any other way. Period."

No, it isn't PERIOD. This is a court case. They are trying to make it a felony.


There is room for argument.

If Scientology plants a flower in the park and AGP goes and steps on it....does Scientology have the right to damages?

IF Scientology owns the property...

If Scientology planted plants on an easement...

If Scientology planted plants on an easement but obstructed the path of walkers..

IF the above but the perp voiced that his sole intent was to damage their property...

If Scientology planted plants on an encroachment...

ETC.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

For some reason, that is the 12th page, the meeting was almost a week ago and there is no news about it here...

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

And if we were each paid a dollar every time we accidentally read another one of your unproductive and pointless "filler" posts, then you would be bankrupt by now.

I do understand that English is not your primary language, and you have some problems writing it (and I do respect your attempts - as they are far better than my written French is, lol)

But your usual style of making generally irrelevant and non-constructive comments doesn't earn you any friends, nor does it help to move our protest activities in a positive direction either for that matter.

So, please "lurk moar" and engage your brain before posting, and you may find that your comments are better received - especially if they help our collective cause.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

You made me laugh. Well done.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

It's always nice to make someone smile, and the world could use a lot more humor.

But please think about the comments - you have a lot to offer, and it's a real shame you don't use it productively

Have a great day!

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Trollers trying to look serious is real fun. Keep it that way.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Maybe time to cut the paranoia and look at the underlying message?

Just a thought (which will sadly probably be ignored or followed up with a semi-sarcastic reply)

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Rummy. No. He (AGP) is in court for destroying someone's property. That's what is at issue here. All that other crap is irrelevant. I don't care how much you wish that you can turn this into something it isn't. The issue here is did Pope go and stomp all over someone else's property and should he have to replace it. Pope is on video clearly and intentionally stomping all over the flowers. Then he showed up on these forums bragging about it and inventing some crazy story about how he did it to make a point. Pope intentionally destroyed their flowers, and he should have to pay to replace them. If you want to act a fool, that's fine. Just don't bitch about the consequences.

Sheesh, numbers at protests are as low as ever across the board, but at least we have a 12 page thread about the arraignment of a dude who trampled a bunch of flowers. Nice to see that Chanology has it's priorities straight.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

You know...if it was me, i'd just say "Well seeing how i'm not a lawyer all i can say it raises some interesting questions, but it's up to the courts to decide".

Thats using my head.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

It will be my last post on this matter. When comparing your post with your signature, I cannot help thinking that you are an hypocrit.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Um, no.. This isn't SCOTUS. This isn't a grey area of law for a judge to weigh into.
Contrary, to rummy's suggestion, there is NOT room for argument.

This is criminal court to rule on one matter, did someone commit an act of vandalism? To what degree (ie. felony)?

The fake "interesting" questions and AGP insistence that one juror will see things differently is misguided. Factors like encroachment, cult history, etc. only factor into sentencing if anything ever. There is one simple thing the CRIMINAL court must determine.

Was there premeditated, willful vandalism, how much $$$ property damaged.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Oh i see, so you're all judge, jury, and executioners now? Fuck what others think, and what may or may not eventually happen with the case, you got it all figured out, and nobody else has any say in it.

I love anonymous more and more every day.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Some of us may be lawyers, and AGP's case is one of strict liability.

He willfully and deliberately destroyed property belonging to someone else. The act was premeditated, and he admitted this on video - which was then circulated in the public domain.

There is no dispute about liability - save the extent of the damages.

In short, AGP is guaranteed to lose (unless he accepts a bargain, or uses an insanity defense)

All AGP's case will do is annoy the DA, and cost a lot of Graham's "donations for expenses" money in legal fees and Court costs!

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Please, do not confuse the whole with one of its tiny parts.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Some of you MAY be, and some of you MAY be basement dwellers who never even go to protests, and love to play online. I dont take anyone's word on here, unless you throw out some kind of credentials.

Besides, even if agp DOES loose, so fucking what? he'll just get a little fine and a slap on the wrist, maybe a restraining order. Maybe thats what he wants. Maybe something more interesting will come out of it all, who knows? Sit back and watch...and chill....

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

Yes, don't listen to logic and facts and research. Just shut your ears and say "I don't believe what you say because you are basement dwelling kids and who can trust what you read on the internet". Sure you sound just like a scilon, but don't let that worry you at all.

Sure the only possible outcome is that Scientology can now say that they have been harassed and damaged by convicted criminals. But "who knows"... maybe that is what he wants, after all idiots like you have sent him money which he feels like he can burn.

Re: Angry Gay Pope Arraignment for Pansy Stomping Tomorrow (Wed. 5/6)

If you are talking property issues, then you must consider the issue of abandonment. In many jurisdictions, property ceases to become yours if you abandon it. This has been used by unscrupulous people to legally aquire someone else's land because the land was left unattended.
If the cult wants to claim the flowers are theirs and should therefore be replaced, it can be argued the cult abandoned the flowers by leaving them on public land. The fact that the flowers could survive being dumped on someone else's property is irrelevant.
Also note that technically, AGP may only need to provide replacement bulbs, even if the courst uphold the cult's claim of damages.
Finally, by leaving their property on public land, they had no expectation of property rights at all. If someone leaves a bicycle on the sidewalk, they cannot expect that the property will be protected from damage or even theft.
The cult's best case is that AGP owes new flowers BUT ONLY FOR THE FLOWERS HE DESTROYED. How many did AGP stomp on the video? A dozen?
The cult, however, would be legally responsible in paying to remove ALL of the flowers from the bed, since it's not their land. It would be difficult for the cult to bitch that the plants have been dfestroyed when they will have to be destroyed when they are uprooted by not being on cult land. Har har.
agree that people should just chill and see what's what.