Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

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

  1. rummychick99 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    This is not about saying her opinion is correct. This is about saying that she is not just another attorney. She is THE attorney. She has voiced what their intent was with the ordinance. She has voiced their INTENT when it comes to enforcement. She has voiced what their INTENT is as to where you should be allowed to protest.

    Later, their INTENT will be most relevant in a challenge.

    She brandished around the concept that the San Diego law was upheld by the 9th circuit as if that was a blanket approval of the law.

    IT IS NOT.

    The Supreme Court reversing the decision on Frisby is not a blanket approval of this law. Frisby banned all residential picketing and SCOTUS upheld it. Hey, 884 law is more lenient than Frisby so all is well.

    It isn't.

    Protesters must have ample alternative means of communication. They did in Frisby. They don't at Gold Base.

    As Buster pointed out, the word "particular" is going to be one of the words that causes them a problem. According to a literal translation of the law, you can target RESIDENCES...with an "S"...and we know what will happen if you do. Scientology will try to have you arrested.

    Again, saying she is not just another attorney has nothing to do with elevating her status of right and wrong. It has to do with the fact that she is THE author of the ordinance.

    You will see how it plays into an argument if someone gets busted. Perhaps then you will understand.

    And yes, anyone Protesting at Gold needs to have her comments cued up and ready to go when the cops are giving you a hard time and DOCUMENT THAT YOU SHOWED IT TO THEM. At the very least, have it transcribed on paper to hand them.
  2. Obi-Wan-anon Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Also, we can't target a specific RESIDENT, if we don't know who the residents are.

    So far, the only identified residents are Frasier and Davis.

    It appears that the Cult wants the people housed at Gold to remain anonomous.

    Think about THAT, Davey. A whole compound of 500 anonomous residents, and you're in charge of them.

    We want to welcome our new anon members. We'd thank you all personally, but we don't know who you are...
  3. muldrake Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    If the sheriff's department chooses to arrest people claiming violation of the ordinance, then it is relevant, whatever it says. I guess we'll see how relevant it is once it is in effect.

    Agree with most of the rest of this so I'm just quoting the bits I don't. What is most relevant is the actual language of the ordinance. Legislative intent is only important to the extent the statute is ambiguous. A court might find the ordinance is, in fact, so ambiguous that legislative intent is what determines the case, but it's also possible that if the ordinance is that vague, it's also so vague it's actually unconstitutional on its face.

    Frisby only allowed a ban on all "residential picketing" by defining residential picketing so narrowly that it didn't really ban all of what most people would consider to be "residential picketing." It also didn't okay anything you could do with the ordinance at issue in the case. It merely said the ordinance wasn't facially unconstitutional, i.e. couldn't be constitutional no matter how you interpreted it. It left the issue of what applications of the ordinance were constitutional to later courts. The Supreme Court is very leery of facial challenges to statutes.

    If anyone ends up in court over this particular ordinance, a constitutional challenge will probably be on an "as-applied" basis, because somebody will have actually been arrested. They'll be challenging the statute as applied to them, rather than just in general. (Even so, if they're arrested at Gold, they might try the easier argument of simply arguing that the statute obviously doesn't apply to what they did to get arrested, i.e. picket Gold, by its plain language.)

    As-applied challenges are considerably easier to argue than facial challenges. (This assumes, of course, that an 800 pound gorilla like the ACLU doesn't come along and actually try a facial challenge. Nobody without a lot of funding would be wise to make an attempt. Even the ACLU would probably sit and wait for somebody to be arrested so as to be able to make an "as-applied" rather than a facial challenge.)
  4. anonhuff Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    The county board meetings allow for time at the end of the meeting for public to talk about whatever.

    A satellite picture of the road going past Gold Base, specifically the area around the guard shack could be presented, along with the locations of the dormitories, and the question could be presented to the council members "if I or anyone else were to wish to protest any of the particular residences located on this property, where could we legally do that according to this ordinance?" They either give an answer, which could be evidence at a protest of what is allowed should the ordinance attempt to be invoked against protestors, or they would hem and haw or not be able to answer which would/could be more evidence should the ordinance be challenged on it's constitutionality.

    Just an idea.
  5. Qball Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    More of this, really.

    I think the point should be made (politely but firmly, and without wild-eyed threats) to public officials like the Riverside council that we won't forget, and that we'll make sure others don't forget. It should be made explicitly clear that if they want to climb into bed with the Scilons, they are going to be called upon to explain their lack of action, or worse, their willing complicity, in the face of serious allegations backed by years of testimony and documentation, once CoS implodes.

    I am convinced that such an implosion is inevitable. And when it happens, there will be a kneejerk public outcry of "Why didn't someone DO SOMETHING?" that accompanies any major tragedy/scandal. Politicians who suck up to the cult need to be made fully aware that when the media and the general public start baying for blood, searching for someone, anyone to blame, that the finger will be pointed squarely at them.

    As we're already seeing in Hollywood, Scientology is widely becoming known as poisonous to one's career. We need to get that same fear across to self-serving officials, and appeal to their own well-developed survival instincts.

    No threats, no lynch mobs, no foaming at the mouth. Just facts. "We brought you plenty of evidence regarding abuses of parishioners, the harassment of critics, the subversion of the law, etc. When a cultist dies, and their family is in front of the cameras, demanding to know how this happened, we are going to point to you. 'We told them. Here is the video of us telling them.' You will not be able to act surprised, feign shock, or claim ignorance. Good day, sir/ma'am."
  6. rummychick99 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    I have repeatedly used the words" as applied"and that is where this is going to be challenged most successfully IN MY OPINION.

    I think you misinterpreted my use of the word "MOST" in " most relative"...which is easy to do given the way I wrote it.

    In my case...the definition is: "very".
  7. RightOn Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    As far as I remember. AO tried to ask questions at the end of the meeting. He asked Stone when did he receive the black PR packet from COS, and was it mailed? ect...
    All Stone kept saying was "This is your time to comment"
    He didn't have the common decency to aswer any questions. He made it clear it was AO's time to COMMENT.
  8. xenubarb Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    You mean by standing over the tunnel so the cult would command its flunkies to hide from us?
    That's no "blockade." Nobody was physically restraining them or preventing the poor little darlings, at least not from our side. It was their own people who ordered them out of sight and shut down their dinners, not us. It would have hurt nothing for them to walk past us...I mean under us thru the tunnel.

    You can't really say you're being victimized when you're issuing the orders. Except in Rivercide, apparently...
  9. eddieVroom Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Oh, I agree -- my concern is behaviors that might be interpreted as Intent to "target" a specific building, which may give the clams an opening to try to use 884.
  10. anonhuff Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Well what's the first thing you think when you read an article or watch a news segment about some alleged incident and the alleged perpetrator is attempted to be reached for comment and they either don't return the phone call or state 'no comment'? Meanwhile the injured party gives their full side of the story on the record/to the camera.

    Transparency vs. opaque says a lot to the public. If they don't want to answer those questions then that is probably their right, but why don't they want to answer those questions? That is the feeling left behind after they choose that path.
  11. Gadfly Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    *tinfoil warning*

    At the end of the meeting Jeff Stone says that Assistant Sheriff Pete Lebahn was working with Walls on the ordinance. Lebahn previously worked in the Indio Sheriff's Department. I can't find extact dates but he was promoted in 1991. Alhadeff was the City Attorney for Indio in 1991.

    This doesn't necessarily mean anything. I only looked it up because I thought it was odd that Walls worked with an Assistant Sheriff and not the Sheriff.
  12. mnql1 Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Just for the record, the March 10, 2009 Board of Supervisors meeting has been adjourned to March 17. This decision was published on March 9.

  13. anonhuff Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    "Maybe if we wait a week, they'll forget all about their constitutional rights and what a complete douchebag cult-shill I am." - Jeff Stone
  14. Anonymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    So we have another week to dig??
  15. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    The person who seached the polling station at Gold base mentioned in another thread that the whole compound is a residence. Does this change something about how Ordinance #884 is going to be applied ?
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Wouldn't put it past 'em, although we do have them on record saying that it won't affect protests at the front of Gold Base, somewhere near the end of the meeting video where it passed.
  17. azonymous Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884


    Rabbit hole is deep...
  18. anonhuff Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    It's pretty convenient that the KESQ reports are in 3-minute segments. Just long enough to fit into an allotted time in the public comments section of a riverside county board meeting. If someone or 5 people were so inclined.
  19. TomVorm Member

  20. RHill Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    The Valley Chronicle: Picketing law revised

    Thought the meeting was adjourned to March 17?

    EDIT: Hmm, despite the news being dated March 13th, it seems "Last Tuesday" is actually referring to March 3rd? Valley Chronicle = Slow pokes?
  21. King Nerd Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    Has this thread reached a consensus yet? I'm getting bored with the chit chat.
  22. Herro Member

    Re: Gameday 3/3 - Ordinance #884

    I'm still trying to figure out what is going on in this thread. As far as I can tell, anon needs to make a roadside memorial because david miscavige decapitated some chick with a fork lift.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins