Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

Discussion in 'GoldBase' started by Anonymous, Mar 2, 2009.

  1. terryeo2 Member

  2. subgenius Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    All I can say is read the actual ordinance.
    I believe ole Bob Buster was right.
  3. Avery1 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    /r/ GB's measurments
  4. Haruhi Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Inb4 pretty pretty princess.
  5. rummychick99 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Legally, the new rules WILL apply in certain areas under certain circumstances. Read the ordinance in a literal fashion and parse the words

    It is poorly written and it will be a free for all as you stated.

    People who protest out there will have to decide whether they want to test the constitutionality of this ordinance. There are ways to do it.

    However, if all you want to do is picket...then just don't get near the residences. You may still get arrested..but you will have a very viable defense and you can use the words of the City Council and the Lawyer.

    I think they will use the Trespass Law more than this ordinance.

    I would make sure at every protest that there is a video of the Attorney saying it does not apply to the dining hall.

    This is going to be one of their main avenues of attack.

    I would also make sure someone has a copy of the Penal Code that indicates that the cops do not have to comply with a citizen's arrest.

    I think I would also have the video of the attorney saying... I think the residences are here and here. and here...

    I would have a copy of a map that indicates where the residences are...even if it is one from a former member that was circulated here.

    This way, if they suddenly say something else is a residence that was not covered by Walls, you have got a pretty good argument with the cop standing there...well how was I suppose to know that was a residence!
  6. eddieVroom Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    That's only one attorney's opinion. In fact, until tested by courts, everything about 884 is essentially opinion, including the way Jeff Stone et all characterized it.

    I don't think the Happy Fun Cult would have gone to the trouble to get this thing if they didn't intend to use it, and reasonably believe that they are capable of using it to their advantage.

    Oh, and I started a new thread on the possibility that Mr. Buster may have been signalling a desire to balance the scales a bit:
  7. rummychick99 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    It's not just one attorney. It is THE attorney responsible for the ordinance.
  8. Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    It's going to take case law hearings and trials to eventually get the new Scientology law revoked.
  9. restim Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    It's just one attorney, and one with no standing in prosecutions for violating the ordinance. If you believe her statements as County Counsel will have greater influence on Rivercide County judges and DAs than bogus claims from culties, you are entitled to that belief.

    I think history suggests the opposite, though. Just my opinion.
  10. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Quick learner.
  11. Herro Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Or, you know, convincing the board of supervisors to revoke it.
  12. cowboyanon2 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    yea.. its up for review in 6 months..
  13. Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Yeah, I found the link. But the stupid thing refused to set igtnore on Supreme Roolah and the trolling "moderator."
  14. rummychick99 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    THE attorney who is responsible for the law tells you that her law will allow you to do such and such. She says your constitutional freedoms are protected here there and in this way. It is her job.

    Someone else, you say a judge and prosecutor, claim it will not allow you to do such and such.

    Do you think it might lead credence to Bob Buster and his argument about the ordinance and it facing a constitutional challenge?

    What THE attorney says you can and cannot do and where you will be allowed to do what you can do is very relevant.

    Again, she is not just another attorney. She is THE attorney who supposedly wrote this law that was designed to protect your constitutional rights.

    It was a poorly written law. I have parsed out many examples of how this can be challenged as applied in a particular situation.

    What the author of the laws says it will do IS VERY IMPORTANT.


    Do not , under any circumstances, just blow off what she has said at any point..and say ..oh...she is just one doesn't matter.

    Perhaps GB will do a better job of getting this point through to you about building a constitutional challenge to a law.
  15. Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    I loled
  16. FreakE420 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

  17. restim Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    The trying judge and prosecuting DA trump THE attorney at trial. That's just how things work. If you think a statement from the Rivercide County Counsel will influence a Rivercide County court's interpretation of the ordinance, you are welcome to that opinion. I think a statement from County Counsel would be excluded as prejudicial because that's how they do things in Rivercide when people picket Gold Base.

    Have you read the Appellant's Opening Brief from Keith Henson's appeal of his criminal conviction and jail sentence for picketing Gold Base?

    The DA's response isn't "Omygod let's do this appeal and find out if these horrible allegations are true because if they are we have some serious fixing to do here."

    Nope. It's "Too bad so sad. Your appeal is untimely now die in a fire" (I admit I'm paraphrasing a bit, but that captures the essence). That's how things work in Rivercide County.

    I'm sure her statements would make a difference once things reached the Court of Appeal. But till then, I say don't hold your breath.

    It's nice that you care about constitutional challenge. Seriously. I'm not discounting its importance at all. But before anyone charged under this ordinance gets to attempt a constitutional challenge (ignoring facial challenges), there has to be a conviction under the ordinance.

    If one person faces three convictions under the ordinance before a successful constitutional challenge, the lucky individual gets to spend six months in jail. I know the jail sentence is not compulsory, but we are talking Rivercide County. You probably think that could never happen, no one will be jailed for violating this ordinance while it's being challenged. Maybe you're right if you think that.

    Lots of people were certain Henson would never even face trial for picketing Gold Base, because the law he was accused of violating simply did not apply. It specifically excludes prosecution of individuals exercising first amendment rights. The thought that he might be convicted and jailed was too preposterous to even consider.

    They were wrong.

    I already have a pretty good idea of what GB thinks of Rivercide County justice and tangling with the Happy Fun Cult in court. I don't think he would encourage anyone to go down that path to build a constitutional challenge.
  18. TinyDancer Member

  19. restim Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Thx TD. Your efforts to maintain some semblance of organization are much appreciated.

    Heh. Your admirer does get a bit unruly at times, but he actually has several redeeming qualities. Knows a shitload about the [strike]goddam republican mafia criminals[/strike] cult and its history in California. Hope he hasn't managed to get himself permabanned.
  20. Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Saved to my stash of things I laugh hysterically at when no one's looking.
  21. eddieVroom Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884


    Clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And new laws have had unintended consequences before. Happens all the time.

    I'm not content to just assume that her opinion is correct, even if she [STRIKE]drafted[/STRIKE] copypasta'd the thing herself. She seems incompetent.
  22. TinyDancer Member

    I'm not fully confident that he was referring to me.

    He'll be back shortly. As you say, he's a font of useful information and a valued ally.

    She may well have drafted the thing based on other ordinances that have been held constitutional.

    But, it strikes me that those ordinances are probably much easier to interpret in the context of your average residential block. Gold Base's unique configuration adds layers of complexity for us.
  23. kitfisto Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

  24. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    According to GB (hearing), the changes made modify completely the meaning of the San Diego's one.
  25. thing1 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    This just came to me. There is no need for someone to actually test 884 by getting arested or fined. Instead a lawsuit can be brought against Riverside. The Entertainment Software Association and ACLU have done this quite a few times.

    Appeals court: Governator's video game law unconstitutional - Ars Technica

    Child Online Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Maybe Graham should look into this.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Lawsuits are very expensive...just saying
  27. Herro Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Always swinging for the fences makes it much more likely to strike out you know. Look, before everyone gears up for supreme court rulings, constitutional amendments and bloodless coups, shouldn't the first step be to see whether or not the ordinance will really interfere with protest?

    Call the local branch of the ACLU and ask for information about getting a monitor to come out for the big picket coming up. That's a good place to start. If nothing else it sends a message that you aren't going to allow yourselves to be fucked with.
  28. Anonymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Who is this and what have you done with Herro?
  29. Optimisticate Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    OK, let's say I'm about to travel 4500 miles to the opposite coast to visit my good friends in California (I'm assuming I can find some there). I'm also planning on picketing at Gold while I am visiting.

    How do I find out where the residences are within the compound, and who lives in each one, and when the residents will be in residence?

    Will the limitations be clearly marked as this is an unusually large residence and not a standard residence found in suburban areas?

    Will the laws be posted openly as this is in an unincorporated area along a highway that, as far as I know, is open to the public for use with their personal vehicles that may stop along the road? Heaven forbid a traveler get the urge to pee and step behind a tree to take care of the call of nature, hear a shrilly little girl voice shrieking "CITIZENS ARREST! TRESPASSING!", then be tackled and handcuffed while wondering WTF and peeing on themselves.

    Will they have fully detailed maps available for me with schedules so I can stay within the law, or am I going to have to pull something out of my ass for that?

    How can I be sure that a residence is not targeted? If I'm standing in front of it (meaning on the other side of a huge wall with insanely brutal barbed wire lining it and I can't even SEE the residence, just the roof), is that targeting it even if I don't know who is in there?

    What if I start shouting to John Doe or Jane Smith? Is that targeting if they don't live there?

    I have NO CLUE who lives there, although Tommygirl2 claims that he does, I think. Am I ok if I avoid his name in particular?

    Laws and regulations and ordinances are one thing. Finding the loopholes in them and making said loopholes big enough to drive a semi through is another.
  30. Anonymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

  31. RightOn Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Ok, sorry if I am derailing...
    Did not know where to ask this... I found all these different names for Gold....
    Anyone have a clue if this is any new info or helpful??? (of couse not the Golden Era name or RTC name)
    If not, just say shut up.

    Location: 19625 HIGHWAY 79
    Category(ies): v viii

    Location: 19625 HIGHWAY 79
    Category(ies): v viii

    Location: 19625 HIGHWAY 79

    Location: 19625 HIGHWAY 79
  32. Anonymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Use this one if you want the message to go directly to the Lolis in hotpants.
  33. 33755 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    See chart at wikileaks / Command Chart of Scientology

    and descriptive booklet from which chart came Command Channels of Scientology

    description of leak
  34. eddieVroom Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    On the face of things, if you're not targeting a residence, 884 remains irrelevant. Obvious behavior is Obvious.

    That said, I expect the clams will try to push their interpretation at some point.
  35. King Nerd Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Cripes, some of you have some big dreams.
    Start small as Herro suggested.
  36. Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    From Buster:

    "The ordinance defines targeted picketing as picketing that is targeted at a particular residential dwelling and proceeds on a definite course or route in front of or around that particular residential dwelling."

    So.... can we in fact target a specific NON SCIENTOLOGY residence to picket and be in 100% compliance of the law while standing on the public property in front of gold base?

    "Yeah, that damned Xenu guy living at 1234 Fake St. He crapped in my breakfast cereal. I'm out here with all my friends to show him what an asshole he is!"

    Furthermore, is there any overlap that we can use to phrase ambiguous picket signs on.

    For example "Only you can escape from the prision you put yourself in." Could refer to the way sexual offenders are allowed into a person's area or it could refer to gold base.
  37. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    I would not use this nice idea for the time being, but might be helpful in the future.
  38. subgenius Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

  39. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Sub, please, learn to quote.
  40. Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Just had a thought. Why not protest Jeff Stone?

    With his ties to Scientology, having similar (or exactly the same) picket signs would still be relevant. Or better yet, have two people with signs that have a picture of Jeff Stone.

    That way you can protest in front of Gold Base. "Sorry, we're targeting Jeff Stone's residence."

    Bonus points if you picket in front of someone else's house near Jeff Stone's and inform them that they woudln't have to put up with the noise and aggrivation if 884 wasn't passed by Jeff Stone.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins