Customize

Notes and Observations: Sparrow Transcripts

Discussion in 'Anon Sparrow' started by xenubarb, Jun 24, 2011.

  1. Anonymous Member

    No doubt others will blame her to,everyone writes Kr's about everyone in the cult.She must be an SP.
    I have already sent a report to the RTC.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Ann O'Nymous Member

    My guess is that she could have been asked about the videos they made. KB could pretend ignoring what is on them; it would have been more difficult to do so. Your lawyer could have asked her:
    - why did not she provide them to the police,
    - on many occasions you wore a mask,
    - why did not she look like afraid being near you,
    - etc.
  3. subgenius Member

    I'm going to do a critique based upon a real quick scan of the transcript.
    Don't yell at me.
    I thought the judge did a competent job, and seemed charming.
    However, I don't think he "got it." It is still hard for me to believe these days how many people are completely unaware of the abuses of the so-called Church of Scientology, and he seemed to be clueless. You would think that he would have googled it at some point in his life if not in connection with this case. Don't yell at me about this being improper.
    I was also mightily pissed when he went out of his way to kiss the ass of the lying police officer. Don't yell at me about him not knowing all the facts. Since he didn't he shouldn't have assumed that they did such a sterling job, which of course they didn't then, and continue to not do now as evidenced by sparrows most recent videos showing a Washington DC cop berating him for being "paranoid" when in fact he had just managed to acquit himself after being framed. I know it's hard to do in real life, and sparrow is usually quite quick witted, but I wish he would've said, to that cop, "I don't think it's being paranoid when I just got acquitted after being framed by these flaming butt holes."

    I also thought the judge wasn't as efficient as he could've been in particular by, among other things, not allowing the testimony of radio Paul to be taken out of order, to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to him.

    Another thing that almost made me vomit, and that is still an option, is his closing remarks to Kim Bellotte, wherein he reinforced her bullshit "fear" by indicating that he felt that sparrow had harassed her but that it was justified by the protections for free speech. He did not appear to reach the conclusion, much less make a finding, that she was the lying perjuring cunt that she proved yourself to be even just from reading the transcript. This goes for the other lying perjuring cunt from the org. Don't yell at me that the judge didn't know what all we know about what really went on behind the scene is, and outside of the courtroom evidence. I also was appalled at the Judge's suggestions as to how sparrow should protest in the future. He appeared to be trying to be wise, but looks like an ass. How dare he. The suggestion is completely stupid.
    I actually thought that the prosecutor did an amazing job with having absolutely nothing.
    I was taken aback at how much defense attorney could have, but didn't do. He could have subpoenaed all kinds of other juicy witnesses and had a field day giving them the surprise buttsex they so richly deserved. Vicki and Clyde are only two of the most prominent examples. Oh and he could have subpoenaed the raw video footage both from the security cameras on the building and from Vicki.
    He attempted to and did get in some testimony of the cult’s policies about fair gaming, but was somewhat stymied in attempting to get in evidence that they would lie to protect the cult. This also goes to the judge’s ignorance in that he merely accepted Kim's assertion that she would not perjure herself for the cult. Isn't there something called TR-L's? And isn't this training on how to lie effectively?
    Don't yell at me about strategic decisions based on things of which I am unaware. I am assuming that in throwing this shit into the fan.
    This is just what I have so far from a very quick reading.
    You can start yelling at me now.
  4. xenubarb Member

    Did you happen to notice the judge completely behaving as if Sparrow had blocked Kim from her car in his summation? Yet your honor, did she not clearly and repetitively state that SPARROW NEVER LEFT PUBLIC PROPERTY, NEVER TRESPASSED ON SCIENTOLOGY PROPERTY.

    Given that is the case, wtf your honor? How did he block her from her car in the cult parking lot if he never left the public sidewalk? WTF?
  5. subgenius Member

    having been there, they park almost on the sidewalk at the side of the building so its theoretically possible.....if they weren't lying liars...
    a subpoena for the side security cam would have proven whether Kim was lying about its limited coverage too.....I'm sure she was
    the whole not reporting/calling the cops immediately (cellphone 911) was perjury given their eagerness to do so at the drop of a hat otherwise
    the judge's sympathic comments give cult good internal/external PR since judgy says sparrow did it but its protected
    i'm hating the guy more and more
    it was all so obviously all just to stop him protesting and he failed to see that, or see how important it is to not let that occur....it is a federal crime as was nicely pointed out in the recent re-cap of the subway affair.....
    sparrow countersue for conspiracy to deprive rights please
  6. BLiP Member

    I wonder what the Civil Liberties Union observer made of it all.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Mitsu Too Member

    I agree somewhat with most of what you said but remember the defense never did have to put on an actual defense. The prosecutor did not prove his case so a good defense lawyer would not introduce too much more to leave the door open on cross. Brian did not take the stand after all but had he this would have opened the door wide for the prosecutor. It is interesting that Vicki was on the prosecutor's list but he did not use her although Kim made such a point of saying she never asked her to film or to see the tapes. As much as we the viewing public would have loved to see the take down of more scientology witnesses this was not a trial of scientology and his lawyers must first protect Brian's interest. Regardless we did see some delicious nuggets out of this trial.

    Edit: Spelling..I fail at two finger typing!
    • Like Like x 5
  8. subgenius Member

    I didn't make it clear that where she parked is not a parking lot, but just a space between the sidewalk and the building. So in opening her door it would cross into the sidewalk area.
  9. subgenius Member

    True to the extent of the attempted stalking charge since acquittal was directed after the prosecutor's case.
    Can't believe he didn't dismiss the mask charge then too.....using it to harass (her) when most of the time he didn't have it on his face....and she knew who it was even when he did.....
  10. RightOn Member

    not to derail and I have aksed this many times before
    How on earth are they allowed to park there again?
  11. subgenius Member

    Is it worth wondering about, or bothering to find out?
    They probably just park there, it is their property.
    They probably could park on the front lawn if they wanted to.
  12. RightOn Member

    I thought they parked partly on the sidewalk?
  13. SomeRandGuy Member

    Mr Keys had some fantastic cross examinations of the witnesses. Although it was only a transcript, he seems awesome and quite sharp ^_^. I read through the whole thing and tried to think what I would say to pull their stories apart, and he came up with a bunch of stuff that I would have missed. (I guess that's why he's paid to be there and I'm not not ^_^ )

    He's also patient as shit:

    Q: "Would you agree that you're [...] at least two cars away?"
    * "So, listen to my question"
    * "Could you focus on my question?"
    * "Can you focus on my question? My question is simple. If you don't understand it, please let me know."
    * "If he is before this black car and you were anywhere near the stairwell you are at least two car lengths away from him, right?"
    * "You've said that four times, but that's never been my question. Did I ask him was he walking towards you?"
    * "Ma'am, can you answer my question? Did I ask was he walking toward you?"
    * "I didn't ask that. But you've answered that question four times now, right? Because you want to just say that, right? You don't want to answer my question, do you?
    * "Yes. Yes. And I'm trying to reason and point out..."
    * "Yes. And right now at this video you can see this corner here, right?"
    * "Okay. And that corner is right by the first black car right there, right?"
    * "Can you answer my question please?"
    * "So, the answer to my question is, yes, he was about two car lengths away, right?"
    A: "Yes."

    ------

    Q: "Okay. So he's standing over here[?]"
    * "Hang on. Just --"
    * "Would you please answer my question?"
    * "That wasn't my question."
    * "You're going to say that no matter what, aren't you?"
    * "Would you please listen to my questions and answer them."
    * "Your Honor, I would ask that the witness be instructed to please answer my questions."
    * "Okay. And so when you're standing right there in the stairwell shown on Government's Exhibit No.2, he's still on the sidewalk, right?
    * "So that's a yes?"
    A: "Yes."

    ------

    It kind of reminds me of how photographers get children to look at the camera with little toy birds (probably sparrows.) It's funny because she's been trained to avoid questions she doesn't want to answer, but a lawyer will sit there all day until he gets his answer.

    Dear god, Sparrow's videos saved his ass. Imagine going into this trial without any of that? What a nightmare. On the plus side, I'm glad to see how quickly the vast majority of their lies were cut through. I do think the sister comment was bad, but that's not worth a court's time... I mean wtf. It sucks because with all the mean/intimidating/dirty shit they've tried on Sparrow, they should have their sorry asses in court. I hope they will one day ^_^

    Best part: having a Scilon admit that there was a spelling mistake on Sparrow's SP declare.
    • Like Like x 2
  14. This would have been the only reason I would have put Sparrow on the stand, to explain how he came to know about the sister, that he wasn't talking them persay, just that he got a tip or whatever. I don't think Sparrow got the info on the sister from some illegal method. My best guess would be he heard about it on the forum and was asking her to confirm if what he heard about her sister was true. But then again, I don't know how that panned out, so maybe it's better we not discuss it.
  15. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Might come from here: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/jorge-arroyo-in-memoriam-my-first-mexican-amigo/ (google is your friend).
  16. Intelligence Member

    This ^^^^^ is excellent. Lawyers and Judges try to avoid attacking on Religious Beliefs, but "Teachings and Policies" are another thing.
    Love it:):):)

    .
    • Like Like x 2
  17. xenubarb Member

    Well, I would say the best part was Belotte referring to the Fruits of Islam as "These people," but that's just me, viewing this from a future PR nightmare standpoint.
    I'm with you, I just LOVED Dr. Keys yanking those wisdom teeth of truth out of Kim Belotte's skull! She really really really really really DID NOT want to answer the simple question that would have revealed how very very close Sparrow came to her. Two car lengths, at least. Booo...scarily proximate! Barely out of reach of his mighty erection!

    Too often, I've read transcripts where a lawyer will just gloss over a lie they don't want to challenge. I would nail every single lie to the fence, always.

    Videos? Clearly this is the first case that relied heavily on footage shot by Sparrow. The culties don't know how to deal with video evidence. Stupid Kim Belotte actually tried to postulate the court into misreading the video evidence.

    "I wasn't there."
    "You're right here in this window!"
    "I wasn't there."
    "You were standing RIGHT THERE talking to <tony bangbang muhammad> before he approached Sparrow."

    They can't deal with video. Indeed, the expected baww from the prosecution came at the end, where Cook feebly tries to suggest that the videos were edited. Too little, too late, Mr. Cook. You did the best you could with what the state made available. Fail.

    Two lessons from this:
    1. keep those cameras rolling, always.
    2. Hire Mr. Keys. Seriously, that guy is GOOD.
    • Like Like x 4
  18. Anonymous Member

    recap: Scientologists can't tell the truth.
    Scientologists can't see the truth.
    Scientlogists can't handle the truth.
  19. Intelligence Member

    Good job ln all of this Sparrow. Bravo to your lawyer. And thanks to your balls of steel and vigilence in kicking some serious ass in 2011. Look forward to protesting again with you one of these days. Maybe in DC?:) Take care and lay off the Viagra during raids; seems that errections scare certain people who have never seen one,..., LOL. Big Hug:)
    • Like Like x 3
  20. tikk Member

    Okay, I finally got through transcripts. My general impressions follow; I’ll try not to reiterate what’s already apparent in the transcripts.

    If you’ve read the transcripts you know that much of the give-and-take battle appeared to be over evidence: what could come in, what couldn’t come in; what needed to come in first, etc. If this was a jury trial these questions would have dominated to an even greater degree. But because the judge is the fact finder and can better assess the point where relevance (admissible) bleeds into prejudice (inadmissible), much evidence was entertained here that otherwise would likely not be. Realize that a judge can’t “consider” inadmissible evidence as the basis of his/her decision but judges are curious and supposedly impervious to prejudice so inevitably wind up hearing things that a jury wouldn’t, even if he can’t consider it.

    Thus, a considerable amount of discussion was heard about Scientology (and, somewhat hilariously, Shelly Miscavige). The purported basis for this was because at the heart of the stalking claim (and for what it’s worth, the court appeared to treat the charge as “Stalking” as opposed to “Attempted Stalking”), it was necessary to determine the nature of Sparrow’s speech—was it constitutionally protected or was it directed at Kim Belotte as part of a course of conduct related to stalking her? If you’ve watched only a few of Sparrow’s videos you know why he’s there; and if you haven’t, It should suffice to grasp that spending 180 days picketing Scientology is a stupendously inefficient way to stalk one of its members. As Key frequently demonstrated, Sparrow’s interactions with Kim comprised the thinnest sliver of time relative to that spent protesting. But the idea was that in order to know whether Sparrow was stalking Belotte it was necessary to understand what he was saying to ensure that it couldn’t be construed as stalking her.

    Was it superfluous and even envelope-pushing to reiterate so many of Sparrow’s arguments against Scientology? Probably—the legal purpose (relevance) it served was real but pretty narrow if weighed against the possibility of it prejudicing a hypothetical jury—if this was a jury case many of the questions Key was permitted to ask would not have been permitted, in my opinion. I’ll speculate that Key had some good non-legal reasons to press this angle. For one thing, it kept Belotte off-balance and probably even angered her to hear what she likely recognized as entheta. It’s difficult to read mood in a transcript but Belotte was clearly rattled (enturbulated even) on the stand and couldn’t ably handle Key’s persistent questioning.

    It also served the purpose of schooling the judge on the fact that Sparrow had a legitimate basis to protest and wasn’t there as part of a grudge he held from the time he was in that Org with Belotte. The material he chose also suggests to me that he wanted to convey the idea to the judge that Scientology is methodical about details and security, which discredits the lack of direct evidence of Kim’s claims—if Sparrow had done what Belotte claimed, evidence of same would likely have been caught by Scientology’s cameras. Belotte’s testimony even somewhat acknowledges this reality, when she casually suggests not having bothered to ask about video supporting her claim, the purpose of which (I’ll speculate again) was to weaken the far more reasonable narrative, i.e., Scientology obsessively undertook an obsessive but ultimately fruitless search for video evidence of wrongdoing by Sparrow.

    Key obviously did a masterful job of discrediting Belotte, the highlights which other commenters have already pointed out. The most damaging highlight, I think, was the discrepancy between her statement to the police and what Sparrow was recorded saying on video—the “to you” discrepancy. The reason this was such an effective point to make is that it perfectly fit into the defense’s main theme—after repeatedly trying and failing to prevent Sparrow from protesting, Scientology resorted to “upping the ante,” which meant that witnesses’ recall of key details were shaded in less than credible ways. What Sparrow actually said was not threatening—add two words and it’s suddenly actionable. Every piece of prosecution evidence fit this narrative, as “what really happened” was tweaked just enough to result in charges against Sparrow.

    As I think Sponge pointed out, the most satisfying read in the transcripts is Key’s closing argument toward the end of day 5, which focuses primarily on Belotte’s lack of credibility. But it’s worth noting that the judge didn’t discuss her credibility in granting the defense’s motions for acquittal on the two charges. This is because the procedural mechanism—the motion for judgment of acquittal (MJOA)—required the judge to view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution at this stage. The MJOA here operates like a motion for summary judgment (the difference being a SJ motion is always brought pre-trial; this was during trial), meaning that the court assumes the prosecution’s evidence to be true for the limited purpose of deciding whether Sparrow could be found guilty. Thus, in dismissing the charges upon MJOA, the court wasn’t required to delve into the far juicier question of Belotte’s credibility, and so it didn’t. But given Key’s destruction of Belotte on the stand I have to think that if the court declined to grant the defense’s MJOAs and was forced to rule based on Belotte’s credibility, Sparrow would’ve prevailed.

    Rather, the court rules for Sparrow on the basis that the vast majority of his protest activity was constitutionally protected, and if he did cross the line a few times, those few times weren’t enough relative to how often he protested. The Court, interestingly, relied on, to some degree (without literally applying), the Snyder v. Phelps case recently decided by the Supreme Court. That decision, though decided 8-1, drew a lot of criticism because Fred Phelps is so reviled. Smarter people noted that it came out correctly, given the adverse implications it could have had on free speech if decided the other way. Sparrow’s case serves as an example of why it was indeed a good thing that that case was decided as it was.

    The mask charge was even flimsier but lasted a day longer because it hadn’t really been dealt with throughout. Indeed, the prosecution proffered no evidence even purportedly connecting Sparrow’s wearing of a mask to actionable conduct, which is ultimately why the court granted Key’s MJOA on this charge. This was egregiously sloppy by Cook, given that this charge was added at the 11th hour, and they had nothing even connecting mask wearing to the conduct prohibited by the statute. Even if the charge is bullshit—which it was for all the reasons Key ably pointed out—the prosecution needed to bring more than an undated picture of Sparrow wearing a mask.

    Sorry, no real tl;dr for the above.
    • Like Like x 22
  21. Hombre Moderator Skandinaviska

    It was well worth it
    • Like Like x 4
  22. Anonymous Member

    = WIN!

    thanks Tikk
  23. tikk Member

    Another thing worth noting in retrospect is that the factual similarities to the Henson case. Both cases saw Scientology convincing a too-compliant DA office to bring rare and unusual charges against aggressive picketers whose purpose was clearly not to terrorize (in Henson's case) or stalk (in Sparrow's case). Both prosecutors introduced weak and/or trumped-up evidence.

    Their legal approaches differed, however. Henson sought to put Scientology on trial by focusing on fair game as an affirmative defense. To that end he filed pre-trial motions (called motions in limine) seeking to introduce evidence of Scientology policies, most notably its fair game policy. That the motions were denied should not have surprised anyone, but Henson didn't appear to have a Plan B and consequently he lost.

    Though Sparrow is also a victim of fair game, he chose to simply defend the charges rather than turn the case into a fair game referendum. Strictly as a legal matter, the existence of fair game, even if presumed by the court, does not necessarily refute the validity of the charge--both can co-exist. Meaning that you have to defend the charge itself. And you have to show respect for the legal process, not relentlessly whine when your hail mary motion isn't granted. And you have to get a decent lawyer and listen to them. And film everything.
    • Like Like x 11
  24. Anonymous Member

    Thanks, Tikk. A note that "film everything" entails having More Than One Person there, and both having some kind of recording device. Videocams pretty cheap these days, but at least one camcorder and one camera and minimum of two persons, always no exceptions.

    I think these transcripts, or at least I hope, are a tiny wakeup to anyone who thinks that just because you're right, or because you've been wronged, or because scientology is evil and criminal that it means you will win.
    Always remember scientology management does Not want to enter the legal stream, and if they do, it's only to cause harm, get someone to be quiet, and to delay something. Don't ever expect a legal scenario where there's a jury, ever. This was true even before sci had fake tax exempt and religious label.
    • Like Like x 3
  25. anonsparrow Member

    Just read this now. Thanks Tikk for the analysis!
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Ackerland Member

    Yeah, sparrow: I read the court transcripts as well. I have to say: you got yourself a hell of a lawyer!
  27. RightOn Member

    thanks Tikk! great write up!

    I would also like to once again personally thank all the people who participated in the auctions for Sparrow, the people who donated items for the auctions, Larry Brennan for being the "mailer" (and donor) and to all others who generously gave towards Sparrow's defense fund. Especially the outrageous generousity of the bid matchers. :)
    Also thanks again to all the people who worked on the vids, which really helped the case out a great deal and helped justice to prevail.
    This magnitude of support continues to bring a tear to my eye.
    • Like Like x 3
  28. Really Acquittal was pretty much guaranteed.

    With the support of the collective and Sparrow's ethical protesting, (not to mention the shitty case by the prosecution.... I've seen more convincing cases in the first level of a phoenix wright game.)

    It shouldn't be any surprise.

    Anonymous. You are truly changing the world.

    "People think the world is run by money. It almost is... But money really masks what the world is truly run by: Support. You can be penny-less or fighting for a cause people believe in. But as long as you have support from others, your voices will be heard, your actions will be felt. You can change the world." - Me
    • Like Like x 2
  29. Intelligence Member

    :)
  30. xenubarb Member

    It's 2:30 in the morning and I am awake because I got wondering...

    When the Fair Game and SP Declare issues were being discussed, the judge noted that Kim Belotte called 911 for the first time AFTER Sparrow received his goldenrod, transforming him into fair game. But...but...but...she had previously claimed to have called 911 repeatedly in the past on him.

    Then she backpedaled and said no, she'd called 311, and nobody said anything.
    411 is information.
    What the hell is 311?
  31. Ann O'Nymous Member

  32. moarxenu Member

    311:



    When should I call 311?
    You should call 311 to request city services and information. In addition, you should use 311 to request general information from the Police Department. Examples of typical 311 calls include:

    • Property crimes that are no longer in progress and the offender is not on the scene. These include crimes such as vandalism, thefts, graffiti, stolen autos, and garage burglaries

    • Animal control problems

    • Illegally parked vehicles or vehicles blocking alleys or driveways, but that are not blocking traffic flow

    • Minor vehicle crashes where there are no injuries and traffic is not blocked

    • Phone numbers, addresses, hours of operation, etc., of MPD units or programs (you can also look up phone numbers and addresses online in the MPD Directory)

    • All other city services, such as Public Works, Motor Vehicles, Human Services, and the Mayor’s Office

    • Trash pick up problems

    • City agency phone numbers, addresses and hours of operations

    • Potholes
    Was Kim calling for information on erections?
  33. xenubarb Member

    Okay, it's what I suspected, since nobody questioned it in court, I figured it to be one of those "common knowledge" things that everybody knows.
    She shoulda stuck with 311.

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