What I don't understand is of the people you were told were to be served one of them already HAD been "served" (me).. so what the hell was the point of serving me again? Or saying you are looking for me and then not 'serving' me, when I walk right by them? It's basically all bullshit, like $cientology.. British Parliament, 1968: "Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the right Hon. Gentleman has reflected on the subject and is noted for his academic brilliance, would he say in one brief, concise sentence, exactly what Scientology is? Mr. Crossman: Yes, I think I could: it is a fraud." Re your Q: "What I don't understand is how you could think the cult wouldn't want to snatch you up again" I couldn't tell you, perhaps cause I tend to cause spiritual indigestion to their body satans? Quoted from THIS PAGE: "This actually happened, in 1997, I was being deposed under color of law by RTC using a bankruptcy proceeding against critic Grady Ward, with whom I associated, they had video running but have YET to release the video.. no wonder why: DEPOSITION STARTS ROSEN: Mr Lerma, why do you continue to say bad things about the Church of Scientology??? LERMA: Mr Rosen, in your question, are you referring to the international psychopolitical terrorist organization running a rapidly shrinking but still brisk business defrauding innocent citizens worldwide doing business as scientology and related entities and front groups??? ROSEN: (Face gets red) said (acting angry) (waving arms around) : Mr. Lerma, you can't describe the CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY that way. LERMA: Mr Rosen are trying to trick me into committing perjury on your behalf? ROSEN: This deposition is OVER."
You didn't walk by the process server, Arnie. You walked by private investigators. Big difference. The cult hired ONE process server who served three people and failed to find you. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference. I discussed this in excruciating detail with you and your wife quite a while ago so I am stymied as to why you're questioning all of this again. Remember that your wife was under the assumption that there was an arrest warrant out for you when we first started talking? I explained to her that it was an injunction and not an arrest. I went over all the details of how these injunctions work here in Florida. I went over all the details including giving you the names of the sheriff's department officer in charge of the process servers and the process server himself. The difference between when you were served the first time and them looking for you again is that Mark Bunker snagged you for them this time. You don't live in Pinellas Co. or the 6th Judicial District so your being under the injunction means jackshit to you. I do live here. I attempted to protect all of us attending Flag Down by making sure that Pete Griffiths returned the money to Mark Bunker and I turned Bunker away the first night of Flag Down. I'm clean. I can't speak for others who attended alongside Bunker and might be served. I did all I could. Someone is obviously trying to cause some kind of a rift here. I talked to your wife and you in detail about this and you both seemed satisfied with the conversation and it was quite a while ago so I am now questioning your motives for backtracking on this in such a clumsy way. Even people who cannot stand me know that I'm not a liar and that being a critic is not my whole life or my livelihood. You believed me when we spoke about this before and now you don't. Something changed and it's not me or the truth. I respect you very much, Arnie. I have told you this to your face. But there's nothing I can do if someone else has put a bug in your ear that what I told you is somehow not the truth. My story is never going to change because I have told the truth.
"You didn't walk by the process server, Arnie. You walked by private investigators." I'm sorry, I believe you are making a distinction with no difference in result and do not wish to discuss this further I am not trying to cause a rift, and I did not call you a liar, I'd just prefer to use the attention I have to see the big picture. leaving the details to those so inclined...
We discussed this at length on the phone. I answered every question that you and your wife asked me. I provided information. At the time of our discussion you were not surprised that the cult was looking to serve you again. The information about the cult attempting to serve you with the LMT injunction has been posted online for a long time. You've known about it for quite a while and for some reason you are just now coming to this thread to put your two cents in? You are an intelligent person, Arnie. You and your wife were very thorough when you questioned me at length about this situation. At that time you and your wife were convinced that what I'd been told and what I knew personally was the truth. Now everything has changed and I'm wondering why now. But I guess you're not going to divulge that so I will just wish you the best. Good luck with whatever is going on, Arnie.
You may not wish to discuss any further Arnie but that doesn't make you right. You are a smart man. One well versed in legal matters and legal terminology and distinctions. Have extensive experience with both PI's and process servers. You know better than to say " a distinction with no difference in result". There is very much a distinction in the roles and duties Arnie. And why they wouldn't be hired to perform the same actions on the same night. Seen as a Venn diagram it would be two distinct circles with a smallish overlap representing PI only, PS only, PI & PS. Those parties are licensed as both and can act in both positions. That does not mean they have been HIRED to perform in both roles. They still CAN, and usually are, be hired as ONLY PI or ONLY PS. Having worked as both a PI and a Process Server (in the UK) I have very much so first hand knowledge of both. Neither position at that time (it may have or not changed since) here required to be listened - I believe that not to be so in the US where both are licenced. Where the imperative is to ensure correct service in difficult conditions (especially avoidance of service) then no experienced legal team would risk assigning both roles - nor would a PI & PS accept such instructions. A PS attempting service wants and needs to be in and out for specific reasons. The first and main reason for the speedy out - not only for known difficult service but for EVERY - is because of the unpredictable reaction of the recipient. Most go smoothly. In and out. But still, as soon as service is performed a PS will turn on their heels and get out. Even at the mildest reaction. You aren't getting paid to stand and explain what happened (and risk saying the wrong words which can have legal consequences as you are acting for the legal team that hired you) or to listen to them drone on about it is a mistake or whatever. I just get paid to give you this paper correctly. Then there are those with a much more extreme reaction. One which is unpredictable in both who and how. That often result in threats of violence or attempted violence. Many meek appearing persons will suddenly blow up -let alone those known to be dangerous. In the UK where there is a threat of or actual violence you don't need to hand them to a person so long as you can swear oath that you informed and showed them where they are in full view. PS's don't get paid enough to risk the violence. Serve, boom, out. If it is a case where there is a suspicion let alone history of avoidance of service, then equally speedy in - don't give any more warning than is unavoidable. Why make it harder on yourself -especially if working for a set fee. Although anyone can act as a process server in the UK rarely does that happen. There are very strict legalities around what constitutes service and the server has to swear an oath to proper service. That can be challenged in court - and a ruling of improper service results in the case being thrown out and process has to start again. No competent legal team is going to risk improper service. More than one person attempting service at a time isn't going to happen either because (in the UK at least) it has to be an original court copy of service that is served- photocopies are for the records. Not forgetting that with 3 possible recipients and 3 servers it runs the risk of 1 being served 3 times which not only risks complaints of harassment but also alerting the other recipients and them taking steps to avoid service or just being missed. A PI on the other hand is there to observe and report. Observe and report the whole thing. Not just until service has taken place. Depending on the client instructions your focus is going to be on observing the group as a whole, specific individuals or a named small group. Observing and reporting on them for a set time period or until a specific action happens. Mostly this will be done with preferably no direct interaction with those being investigated (or even abort if it is possible you have been spotted) though of course the client sometimes directs otherwise. Sometimes they will instruct one or more to interact, ditto to be visible but not interact. It would be stupid to attempt to hire someone to cover both roles for such an important action. This wasn't an impromptu reaction by Co$. They started the planning from the moment they heard it was more than just a vague possibility (maybe even then?). Co$ know every little nuance of proper service and the risk associated with Improper service. This injunction service was so very important to them - no way, no how are they going to risk hiring one person in two roles. The duties and focus of attention of each role are TOTALLY different and conflict with each other. So you are either being very disingenuous in your assertion or have some pressures that are affecting your normally acute thinking. I can't even start to guess which it is.
Oh and btw Arnie Just in case you are now under the impression that you weren't a target of the Process Server or that AmaX is the only one saying it. Mark Bunker reported it to Tony O as soon as he was ejected from Flag Down. Here is a quote from the main article Tony O wrote http://tonyortega.org/2014/05/05/fl...t-by-conference-organizer/#comment-1371251930 Granted I don't always think of MarK Bunker as credible but in this instance .... As to WHY would they want to serve you? Precisely because you ARE such a thorn in their side. You got away before. Lots of times You were a board member but weren't a NAMED PARTY to the LMT injunction As Mark Bunker so disingenuously put it in the comments (when trying to protest his innocence and deflect ) Someone named Billy Bob responded Mark obviously didn't respond to that comment. He knows damn well that you aren't YET constrained by the LMT injunction. And that irks him greatly.YOU were invited and honoured. He was told to stay away, not welcome. His donation returned. But you still can be. And may have to spend time, money and emotions fighting it. He knows that too. Not only were you not a named party despite being on the LMT advisory board. You were then filmed breaking it alongside Bob when the judge ruled Bob was breaking it. So long as they could get you served in the Clearwater area Co$ would have had you in court ASAP You were and are a bigger target than AmaX or any of the others. Now that original quote of Bunker's does beg the question as to how the PS could confuse you and Bunker? You look nothing alike other than being male. Referring back to my previous experience as a PI and as a PS, - it is not uncommon for a client to show the PS photos of the target(s) to be served - should the client have them, which Co$ does. i.e. You, AmaX and assorted others. One of the photos could also have been Bunker. To get you served while in the company of Bunker would have been a cherry on top but not strictly necessary. The aim was to get YOU served period. The PS could easily have mixed up why he had been shown a picture of Bunker - if he had been shown them of course. The Minton video proved historical acting in concert and breaking it A video (by the PI's) of YOU consorting with BUNKER at an anti Co$ activity in Florida would be current proof of you flagrantly flouting the LMT injunction. Do you really believe that Co$ has given up on you? But AmaX, doing exactly what she said she would, stopped that happening didn't it? For that night at least. Were you ever in Bunker's company the following days? Once AmaX was no longer involved?
I don't recall saying anything to give this idea: "Do you really believe that Co$ has given up on you?" so I won't argue with you . I said It made no sense to 'serve" a person who was already 'served' previously under the same case.... ... believing saying they wanted to serve me was some kind of ruse, fakery, or fraud. They had a room full of lawyers to plan the wording and the names of those to be named. Everything they do actually does makes sense IF you can think like a psychopath... which is almost impossible for the normal mind with a functioning conscience. Amax's concerns were based on reason. She remembered what had happened to Shawn Lonsdale, which certain people wish forgotten..I'm trying to recall if Mark Bunker was charged in the original invocation of the picket injunction, I know there were 13 of us total, so I assume he was amongst us but I do not recall, and if so HE was likewise found not guilty.I recall is being asked by Judge Pennick about the phrase "No Ots There" and I choked on my response... which should have been to explain that phrase on the record in lugubrious detail, "NO OTS THERE" is a summary of $cientology's own claims imparted to members. Members who believe they will attain psychic powers to become total cause over matter energy space and time and everything in between including you and I. The FACT that one picketer is standing there holding a sign is physical, undeniable PROOF, that $cientology is a FRAUD. This is what that phrase means... because IF there were just ONE of those "OTs" that all these true believer members give up their lives, health, family and fortunes to attain... then we would not be here!! If $cientology "WORKED" then WHY do they need a room full lawyers? From Blacks Law Dictionary: Fraud: An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words ot conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal inquiry; anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture; fraud comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving a branch of legal or equitable duty and resulting in damage to another. British Parliament, 1968: Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since the right Hon. Gentleman has reflected on the subject and is noted for his academic brilliance, would he say in one brief, concise sentence, exactly what Scientology is? Mr. Crossman: Yes, I think I could: it is a fraud. FWIW: In that incident when Bob was charged under the injunction, I was charged also... They said I was picketing in a restricted zone that I was walking through... They said Tory violated it, by sitting in Santa's Chair for a picture... All were found not guilty EXCEPT Bob Minton. The Judge, A geriatric Judge Pennick (pardon spelling) has since passed away. The injunction was/is a bad joke as far as injunctions go and should have been fought to a standstill by John Merritt to at least make it understandable, edited into something that made sense to anyone with an IQ below 160, instead of the confusing custom color-of-law picketer-fly-trap that $cientology's lawyer's crafted it to be.
Ffs this raging pish should have been buried long long ago alongside AMA and LERMa. Crock of fucking shit TT.
Omg, this is still going on? Tony mentioned to me that the wacky website about me being behind webactism.com was mentioned on WWP so I came looking for that thread but found this one instead. Can anyone point me to that thread? Thanks. Oh, and on the injunction...I've posted two videos recently that show show the injunction isn't stopping anyone from protesting. One where Scientology clearly took photos of me with critics and they weren't impacted at all. We even had a bite to eat afterwards at LRH's favorite restaurant at his favorite table. No problems came from it. In that video a cop wanted me to walk all the way around the block to avoid being close to a Scientologist. I asked what would stop them from having Scientologists stationed all around me so that I couldn't move. That question caused Scientology to line up Scientologists in a row at an event to prevent me from attending...and it also caused the police department to tell their officers not to allow Scientology to use that plan to stop me from freely moving about. You can see the same OSA lady with the cops looking quite disgruntled at the end of this video. Go ahead and picket if you want. You can safely protest in Ybor City where there is NO INJUNCTION at all. But you know that.
Terrific videos with the walk and talk with the PI. The OT pizza parlor owner. Bwhahahaha.Thanks Mark.
It was pretty dead until you, the attention whore, came back in and bumped it. Maybe you should stop searching for your own name and instead search for what you claim to be looking for. We sort of moved on from you to taking on the cult to make up for you playing with footsie with them. Thanks for once again not answering any of the questions you were asked and re-posting some old videos. That of course solved the usual nothing that follow you around. So lets go back over the basics still NYPA find your own damn thread and don't tell people where to protest. LURK MOAR MOTHER FUCKER or hey just try the search bar at the top and stay in your own private freak show. Shouldn't you be off begging for money? I mean isn't rent due soon? What else can we hand hold you through besides your daily expenses, finding threads, jumping through your hoops, etc... I guess it is lonely in cali
Nice work with the videos, as always. Thank you. The comment you are looking for is here --> https://whyweprotest.net/threads/ma...he-earth-good-guy.120997/page-28#post-2592323 Its a bit dodgy. Not sure if its spam or an IP harvest or what. There's another comment linking to the same site in another thread but in that thread the reference was to David LaCroix. I would recommend cloaking before clicking.
You do NOTHING to put yourself in contempt of that injunction that you say means nothing. It's not a secret that Scientology will use anything they can to stop a critic. You abide by the injunction so they don't drag you into court for contempt. Hageli has the $ to fight it in court so the cult knows there's no sense in using it against him. I don't have the money to hire an attorney and get myself out from under this injunction that IS still very viable no matter what your treacherous ass says about it. So the injunction that YOU caused me to be served with works on me. But you and your ass-kissing minions could care less about that. Only two people have purposely caused innocent people to be served with the LMT injunction: Patricia Greenway and you. Greenway is vilified and you are glorified.
Posting about Greenway made me remember Shawn Lonsdale. It's been a while since I did this and I am sad that it has been so long since I calculated a Cult Watch Date. CULT WATCH DAY 3, 809 Rest in peace, Shawn Lonsdale. /derail
