Customize

San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

Discussion in 'Leaks & Legal' started by The Goddamn Pacman, Feb 11, 2010.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    correction


  2. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    I wore a helmet and gas mask in those days, because we were regularly getting gassed, shot with rubber bullets, clubbed, and having police dogs sicced on us. Why? Freedom to assemble, freedom of speech.

    If you can't appreciate that, DIAF.
  3. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    That whole there is no Anonymous thing is complete bullshit. Its just some shit morlafags say to distance chanology from the chans.

    Regardless, the protesters are at least all bound together by the fact that they protest. As such they are a group and can be libeled.



    Pacman said that she admitted to say that the fliers say "Anonymous" is responsible for throwing bricks into the windows of the org and for burning a car.

    That would be libel, unless some SJ anon is a total moron.
  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    LULZ
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Best of luck tomorrow! Nice work PacMan and others:)
  5. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall


    If you were protecting your rights I will and do appreciate that. If you need to douse me with gasoline please do so.

    No offense meant.
  6. Herro Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    I'm not talking about blackmail, but uh, thanks?
  7. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall


    I understand that. And I understood your original question. I'm just making the point of the fact that, if what Pacman is saying right now, it doesn't matter in either way.


    The contents of the fliers doesn't matter. If they distribute them tomorrow then the county is attempting to influence private individuals through threats. That is the definition of blackmail.
  8. Herro Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    Ok?
  9. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    IMPORTANT: If they come to your door, PLEASE document them in some way. We want to know if they are misrepresenting themselves. If there's anything that directly or indirectly implies they are representing the county, we want evidence.
  10. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    Memory is not your forte, nor is intelligence...
    You don't, but it might be the best qualification.
  11. WTF Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    I thought she was femail.













    She should now be shopping Craigslist for a new jorb.
  12. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall


    100 roses will get you an answer.

    fucktard.













    She should now be shopping Craigslist for a new jorb.[/QUOTE]
  13. Herro Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    Oh yeah? Well at least I'm not French.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    I love love love the ignore button
  15. whosit Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall


    tHEN yOU aRE THE worst kind of WWP'ER. iF yOU aRE aFRAID OF oPINIONS tHAT dON'T mATCH yOURS;


    Then your an idiot.
  16. Herro Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    ...after win after win after win...
  17. whosit Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    fucker

    :p
  18. grebe Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    This gentleman does not speak for me.

    Although I believe that Ms. McKee's stand against the protesters is ill considered and likely illegal, I suspect that she is herself a victim of her Scientology's handlers. On that count alone, I would do my best to defend her.

    Ms. McKee realized the fliers were a problem and no doubt asked the Scientologists to return them. The ruin sniffers then got their handle. And here's the deal they offered: McKee gets what she most desperately wants: the fliers back in her office. But first she must phone the Anons and talk them into calling off the protest.

    What McKee did not realize: the phone call was a trap. The Scientologists understand that the Anons would laugh at the offer. Doesn't matter. The offer itself wasn't serious. The important thing was getting McKee to own the fliering project.

    So now because of the phone call the wogs are on McKee like white on rice. Meanwhile the real defamers are off the hook.

    Really, who gives a shit about defamation when you've got a County employee violating citizens' civil rights?

    If McKee comes clean with us we should help her. She's not the target we're after.
  19. LocalSP Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    Some how your being a necessary evil just isn't cutting it today herro.
  20. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall


    No, for the most part we're all perfectly capable of sharing divergent opinions without any need to suffer a seemingly endless stream of useless fucktardery. That ignore button is indeed a useful instrument. Highly recommended.
  21. whosit Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    Excellent. Put me on it.
  22. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    Done!
  23. incog712 Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    No U
  24. whosit Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    never
  25. WTF Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    [/QUOTE]

    "fucktard"

    I am honored--that is the nicest thing anyone has said to me all week.




    A million poppies gonna make me sleep.
    But just one rose it knows your name...




    A tune follows, the significance of which will probably escape you--it is ironically enough by "Cracker"...

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jywZEjSiCBM&feature=related"]YouTube- Low[/ame]
  26. CantPickaName Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    Bigot
  27. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    I don't know about that.

    If you state, in a flyer, that a group of people is responsible for certain actions, but you don't name individuals of the group, I'm not sure any individual could claim to have been libeled.

    Would be interesting for lawfags to address that question.
  28. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    but the group could

    Did you even read my post?
  29. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall


    The question would be "How is the group defined?". Not an easy question.
  30. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    again, did you even read that post?
  31. Herro Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    They can't all be winners.
  32. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    Honestly, no. Now I have traced back through all of the posts. My question still stands and I think it is the same point you are trying to make in a round about way which is the county (I now refer to it - the entity screwing with anonymous, that would be the county - can't either).

    They can't select who "Anonymous" is because that it is an anathema to the concept of what anonymous means. Therefore they can't prosecute or limit any individual's rights.


    meh.
  33. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    One way to define the group: anyone who participates in the IRL protests in front of the Org masked. Speculation, I think CoS is trying to link the "vandalism" with the IRL protestors so it is reasonable(?) to assume that these Anons are the target of the libel/flyers.
  34. eddieVroom Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    hello_kitty_war_hk40k.jpg
  35. PodPeople Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    hallo. I want to hug u right now. Considering her subject matter of her job, can't imagine it Wouldn't be. just got my warm and fuzzy feeling back.
  36. Anonymous Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    I can imagine it would be. Unless the city versus county structure in CA is vastly different from where I live, I don't know why that branch of the county would have records that are interesting enough to warrant keeping them.
  37. grebe Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    Person #1: See those people over there? In the Guy Fawkes masks? Satan worshippers. They hate religion. All they care about is "lulz" - making fun of people. They set this little old lady's car on fire last week. You don't want to go near them."

    Person #2: Any one of 'em gets near me and I'll clock 'em!"
  38. PodPeople Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    It scares me to think what they're Not teaching students today about civics.
  39. eddieVroom Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    "Somebody some day will say "this is illegal." By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not."

    - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"
  40. PodPeople Member

    Re: San Jose Meeting With Delorme Mckee-Stovall

    Interesting is not the keyword. Liability is in any dept. Hate Crimes, more so.

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