I just finished reading the trial transcripts last night (Thanks, Zhent on WWP), and if you want a good read for the 4th of July weekend, I would suggest this. It's a page turner.
For those of you who can't wade through the whole 5 days, I would like to quote some of the best parts of the defense attorney's (Mr. KEY's) Closing speech. He pretty much nails Kim Belotte to the wall. I don’t understand how she can look at herself in the mirror in the morning. It’s just really shameful.
Quote:
MR: KEY:
In addition to that, Your Honor, I would argue that you should not credit Ms. Belotte's testimony, and there are reasons for that. Ms. Belotte has been significantly impeached. She admitted that on numerous occasions, first of all, that she is the boss of Scientology in D.C. She's the top person at the Church of Scientology. As the Court correctly noted, he goes there to protest, not to her house, not anywhere else, there. He stands there with signs, which were visible in some of the videos that the Court watched, and he protests an9 everything he said to her was related to Scientology. I understand it would have been better if he didn't ask her about her sister, but even then, he said, is it true that your sister works on the Freewinds, and the Freewinds is a Scientology-owned ship that is based in Curacao, so even that when he's asking about her sister, he asked about Scientology. And then he turns to Vicki Turissi, who's videotaping, did you know that, and she's giggling. She's not intimidated. Clearly he's not intimidating anybody. None of those instances is there proof that he was wearing a mask, but more importantly Ms. Belotte was impeached. Scientology has called the police numerous times about him protesting, and every time she was told it wasn't enough. He can stand on a public sidewalk and protest. It wasn't enough. So what did she do? She upped the ante. She made things up. He never followed her with an erection to her car. You know that, or at least there's a good reason to believe that that did not happen because if that had happened, she would have called the police. She said it happened on two occasions. It is not believable. You also know it's not believable because she didn't mention that to the police officer. She didn't mention that to the detective in a seven-page e-mail. It didn't happen. That's her trying to say something to make it worse to keep Brian from protesting the Church of Scientology, which has been the goal the entire time to suppress free speech, to keep someone who I am sure is annoying from doing Constitutionally-protected free speech at the Church of Scientology.
What else did she do? She told the police something that wasn't true. She told the officer that he said on July 20th, I can do anything I want to you. You know she said that because the officer told you she said that. He put it in direct quotes. He put it in three different police reports, and even the Government tried to say, well, you don't have any independent knowledge apart from your police work; you don't actually remember that, do you? Yes, I remember that. She said, I can do anything I want to you. The video doesn't show that. Why does she say that? Because that ups the ante, because that makes it worse, that paints him in a worse picture than was true. What he said was, I can do anything I want standing more than 10 feet away from her on the other side of a public sidewalk not near her when she's more than 10 feet away over at the building. She didn't tell the truth about that.
What else didn't she tell the truth about, scarecrow. Your Honor, she took that stand and she told you that she called him scarecrow because it just came into her mind. That's not true. She finally admitted that wasn't true; that actually that was a nickname they used for him. William Powell had used it two times the day before. When confronted with that, then she changed her story yet again. Why? Because if she was using nicknames, it kind of undermines the fact that maybe this was legit, so what does she do? She did that elaborate thing on the stand when you asked her what did you mean, why a scarecrow? Did it have any meaning? And then she kind of, you know, went into, oh, it just so scared me, all that stuff, whatever. She didn't do that in the video. She did that to make an impression on the Court that wasn't true. She didn't just come up with that term. She finally had to admit, no, that was a nickname we used for him. You saw the swarm video. How do you explain the swarm video where she's standing there by the car with a bunch of people. She's going to go this way. She sees Brian back there. She says, let's go, and they all walk around Brian and they all bump him and she's giggling and then they go back the way they came. Was he wearing a mask then? No, there's no testimony he's wearing a mask. Was he harassing or intimidating her? No, clearly not. It just wasn't true. It didn't happen that way. How else do we know that it's not true? Well, we know it's not true because are those ready to play? The two top Clyde clips, the second part July 11th. We know, Your Honor, that she would do anything and that the church would do anything to prevent people from protesting. They labeled him a suppressive person because of his protest, not because of any crimes that he committed. She took that stand and said that anybody could be labeled suppressive person if they committed serious crimes, and I said, well, what about murderers here? Well, well, no, I mean, not if not Scientology. She eventually had to admit that, no, it's really just Scientologists who aren't towing the party line. That's what it came down to. Well, Brian wasn't towing the party line because he was out there telling people that Scientology is not good; that they have problems. Sorry, go to the July 11th one. No, part two, and then pause it. July 11th, nine days before she calls the police and starts all of this her husband is out there saying this.
Hit play.
(Thereupon, the audio/visual recording played for the Court was reported, but is not transcribed herein.)
That was part one. I apologize. We need to play part two.
(Thereupon, the audio/visual recording played for the Court was reported, but is not transcribed herein.)
And then before we play this one, this I think is the most crucial piece of evidence in the entire case. Why? Because Kim Belotte took that stand and she said Radio Paul's different. Radio Paul didn't follow me to my car. Radio Paul didn't stalk me. Radio Paul didn't do anything other than free speech, protected First Amendment speech, and if you watch some of the videos, Radio Paul's wearing a mask sometimes, but she said on some of the videos that were admitted Radio Paul is wearing a mask.
MR. COOK: Government's going to object for the record. I don't ever remember seeing that in the videos but –
MR. KEY: The Court's memory will control.
THE COURT: I don't recall it either, but I don't find it dispositive to anything forward.
MR. KEY: But the point is that she said he was doing nothing that Brian was doing other than protesting, which she had no problem with. The protesting she had no problem with. So he's not following her to her car. He's not stalking her. He's not personally doing anything to
her. He's legitimately protesting, and yet on August 21st you see this. Hit play.
(Thereupon, the audio/visual recording played for the Court was reported, but is not transcribed herein.)
Brian treatment, why would Radio Paul get the Brian treatment? Radio Paul wasn't doing any of the things that they're claiming Brian did. She admitted on the stand the only thing he was doing was lawfully protesting, standing there with signs, but he wasn't doing any of those other things. Those other things that could possibly form the basis for a conviction here, intimidating, threatening, harassing, he wasn't doing those things. If he wasn't doing those things, why would he get the Brian treatment? The Brian treatment, I would suggest the only reasonable interpretation of that is, yes, when you take those two clips together, what does it mean? Scientologists will go after anyone who goes after them, so anyone who says anything bad about them, by any means necessary including making something up. You're going to get the Brian treatment, meaning you're going to get arrested. We'll get you, too. What is there to get Radio Paul? According to Ms. Belotte, he was a lawful protestor, had never done anything wrong.
Your Honor, when you put all that together, I'm not saying that you have to find that Ms. Belotte lied about everything or lied about anything. What I am suggesting is there's enough evidence in this case. It's pretty rare where you get something like that on tape. There's enough evidence in this case to suggest that they have a motive and they have a reason to stretch the truth and to fabricate and to make things up for the reason of getting him to stop protesting. • Calling the police didn't do it, telling the truth didn't do it, right? Couldn't just say he said he can do anything he wants. No, we had to add that, to you, and then these tapes from her husband. It's not believable. When you couple that with the fact that she never called the police any time he supposedly followed her with an erection, never called the police any time he supposedly blocked her in the car, never called the police, period, until July 20th, the next incident after her husband makes this statement, the first July 11th statement, that's when it happens?
This is just part of the closing argument. The whole thing is really good.
After Anonsparrow was acquitted, the judge did admonish him not to do the things that he felt crossed the line. Basically, there were 3 things: One was mentioning that he knew Kim’s sister worked on the Fairwinds, the second was supposedly following her to the Whole Foods store, and the third was supposedly blocking her from getting in or out of her car.
These really bothered me, because Kim was in the court room, and he didn’t mention to her that she shouldn’t LIE to a police officer, which she clearly did. She told the cop that Sparrow said, “I can do anything I want to you,” when clearly he said, “I can do anything I want.” I mean, it’s on video, and she had to admit that’s what he really said.
In my opinion, if she had told the cop the truth, Sparrow wouldn’t have been arrested. So that’s a big deal.
The things he admonished Sparrow for were much smaller. And the only one that was not just Kim’s word was talking about Kim’s sister. The other two weren't proved, and in fact, it was clear that Sparrow ALWAYS stayed on the public sidewalk, and never got closer than 1-2 car lengths. She even admits this. Hardly something that should land a person in jail for 36 hours, and a 5 day trial.
In any case, I’m glad he was acquitted. It was such a no-brainer, but still, it’s good.
Login
Register
OCMB FAQ
FAQ
Search
