Moxon gave him the Anonymous publication like they gave Jeff Stone? Footbullet!

They tried to make the TRO about some weird guy who is stalking an ex-coworker, like he follows HER around, goes to her house, follows her to her car, all that. But that's not the case at all, Sparrow is there only to protest the church. Moxon, in giving Sparrow that publication, proves he understands that Sparrow is there only to protest!

He should DEFINITELY show that to the judge. The railroading of Anonymous in that, plus the fact the complaint mentions "he wears a V mask" shows they know exactly why he's there. It also shows how they Fair Game critics.

Stupid Scientology strikes again!

Injunctive relief as we in the US know it descends from English common law and so date to a time when women were property. So the statutes to which you refer are, in one sense, unnecessary insofar as a judge can fashion injunctive relief based on common law. But you're also right in that the statutes that have evolved of late in most states arise from a greater perceived need to protect women from abusive significant others or family members--and indeed, that's how such statutes are most commonly used. In NY, a family member, or even a roommate, can obtain a TRO just by filling out the paperwork at family court and serving it on the local sheriff; which then prompts a hearing 10 days later dealing with the merits of the case.

It's my understanding that there's no statute cited by Kim Belotte, and that she's basically relying on common law. Which means, I think, that it will come down to the judge's discretion. Judges tend to err on the side of caution in instances where the dispute is between two ex lovers, because those situations often flare into violence, and no judge wants to be the one holding that bag should things go bad.

This is different here for a few reasons: Kim Belotte is merely a proxy for Scientology, whose real interest is in preventing Sparrow from protesting. If Kim Belotte quit Scientology tomorrow and moved to another city, there's no reason to believe that Sparrow would cease protesting, or approach protesting any differently. But Scientology cannot simply ask the judge to prevent Sparrow from exercising his First Amendment speech rights, so they've fabricated a personal conflict between Sparrow and Belotte. This is why they inserted language, seemingly as an afterthought, requesting that the Court prevent Sparrow from following Belotte home. But Sparrow and Belotte share no personal relationship to speak of, a fact which helps expose her claim as a pretext to advance Scientology's interests in preventing speech.

The other main reason this shouldn't wash is because so many of Belotte's statements are made false by Sparrow's video evidence. E.g., how can Belotte claim she's frightened when she's bullbaiting Sparrow along with other staffers? Is that something a frightened person does? No, it's the actions of someone trying to goad someone into retaliating, which would be predicate to getting the police to issue a citation, which would then be a basis to prevent him from protesting. But from what footage I've seen, Sparrow is adept and understanding where the line is, and has shown remarkable resistance to being goaded into doing something impulsive; which must frustrate the hell out of Scientology.

I am asking each person to reads this to take action. Brian Mandigo AKA Sparrow has been notified to turn himself in to face criminal charges no later than 8-5-2010. The DC Police Department has decided to present Kim Bellotte's complaint of stalking to a prosecutor and they found cause to have a warrant issued for his arrest. FACT

I don't want to hear all the usual bull about how a million protesters are going to hit the ORG with protest nor your ideas on what you think the law is. This is a time for action not venting. If you feel someone should notify the press THEN YOU DO IT!

More over this is a free speech issue and I believe the ACLU should be involved here. I am asking each of you to do the following:

1. Email the ACLU at their main email Send page by e-mail | American Civil Liberties Union

2. Call the main number 212-549-2500

3. Email the DC office media@dcaclu.org

4. Call the DC office 202-457-0800

5. Inform them that you are a protester and a concerned citizen and that you are petitioning them to represent Brian Mandigo in a case where he has been targeted for a false charge of stalking for exercising his constitutional right to protest. Advise them the DC office has his contact information and should support him. You might state the known concerns that lawyers often refuse to take on the COS and only the likes of the ACLU can give him proper representation. I know as a protester I am also concerned about a chilling effect that this action might have on free speech, if you feel the same you might want to share that too.

6. Remember this is not your case, it is Brian's. Don't try to argue the facts of it the the person answering the phones at the ACLU or start talking about Xenu. We are after Brian getting a chance to defend himself not making someone hear every point we think they should.

7. Share this information with as many people you can and get them to call and email the ACLU. The ACLU often only takes cases of public interest and it is our job to let them know the public is interested.

8. Make videos on the subject and forward them to the ACLU and others.

9. Last but not least PROTEST! If you are sitting behind your computer, now is the time to let the cult know Free Speech is just that.

10. If anyone knows how to set up a automated petition that can email the ACLU please let me know. Also I am looking for a place on the net where anyone that has ever received a TRO Notice or Cease and Desist can post them in one place for download. It would be nice if someone could go into court showing 50 TRO's and 100 C&D's to show a pattern of abuse.

Again I can not stress enough that this is a case of put up or shut up, lead or get out of the way!

JUST TO VALIDATE THE POLICE SAID THIS CHARGE IS FOR THE LAST INCIDENT WERE BRAIN PROTESTED AND NO OTHER CHARGE OR ACTION IS IMPLIED.

D.C. Code § 22-503. Stalking. (2009)

(a) It is unlawful for a person to purposefully engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific individual*:

(1) With the intent to cause that individual to:

(A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person;

(B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or

(C) Suffer emotional distress;

(2) That the person knows would cause that individual reasonably to:

(A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person;

(B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or

(C) Suffer emotional distress; or

(3) That the person should have known would cause a reasonable person in the individual's circumstances to:

(A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person;

(B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or

(C) Suffer emotional distress.

(b) This section does not apply to constitutionally protected activity.**

(c) Where a single act is of a continuing nature, each 24-hour period constitutes a separate occasion.

(d) The conduct on each of the occasions need not be the same as it is on the others.

Aside from the **constitutionally protected activity exception, there's also this, which I think could be very important both here and the civil complaint. *Sparrow protests Scientology, not Kim Belotte, and he treats her no differently than any other entering or leaving member, which reality appears to be borne out in the videos. The inapplicability of this statute to Kim Belotte is perhaps more important to be made up front than the Constitutionally protected activity section, which is a defense.

HAHAHAHA!

Holy shit.

I called the ACLU office in DC and (i swear to god) the guy on the phone asked me if I was calling about the "scientology guy".

They're on it.

The man told me to pass along to everyone that email is what is needed.

I told him... I understand you are receiving a lot of feedback and I just wanted to add to it that I think it's an easy case for the ACLU due to Brian's excessive documentation of his actions. The man asked me for sparrows youtube channel. Twas given. Good times!

GO GO GO!

Sparrow has spoken with the ACLU, per WWP.

I can't believe the DC police and prosecutor would even take this on. Strike that - yes I can believe it.

IMPORTANT UPDATE:

I spoke with a legal assistant at the ACLU office in DC. He says the Sparrow has contacted them and an ACLU lawyer is on it.

They do not need anymore harpoonz from us so we can stand down. I told the legal assistant I would be posting this message at WWP.

Hi everyone. I'm being super careful about not saying anything that could come back to haunt me..

but the ACLU is not interested in dealing with the criminal part of this case. Here is part of the email that my contact sent me (after s/he called me asking if there was anything I could do to make the phone calls stop - s/he said their lines were swamped with people supporting me! ~Thanks!~) I told this person that if they sent me an email detailing what the deal was that I would cut and paste it. Here it is:




And for the record this person was extremely interested, helpful, and professional both times that I spoke with this person.


So that's the only update for now. I will be checking in for booking tomorrow morning and will hopefully be checking out tomorrow afternoon. Worst case scenario is that I don't get processed fast enough tomorrow morning and will then have to spend the night.

Ah well.. minor inconvenience in the big scheme of things. The cult is getting desperate.. keep up the pressure but proceed with caution. And thanks again and again and again to everyone.

"Sounds like" isn't the same as is. Abortion protesters, for example, often protest one location every day from morning to night, shouting abuse at every single person who goes in and out, singling out employees for harassment by name, often shouting profanities. Similarly, union protests will often protest the same location for months at a time, singling out management personnel for the worst abuse. It is not constitutional to define that kind of conduct as illegal harassment or stalking, which is why the D.C. statute explicitly states that it does not prohibit constitutionally protected conduct. If it did not, it would not be constitutional (although often courts have "read in" such a prohibition when it isn't in the statute in order to "save" the law on the grounds that the legislature wouldn't have meant the law to be interpreted in an unconstitutional manner).

These kinds of protests often get way uglier than anything AS has done, which appears to be standing still while the people who claim he is "stalking" them aggressively approach him and get in his face. That's a mighty peculiar thing to call "stalking." He has the right to stand there and protest.

Update:

Sparrow now has a criminal defense attorney. He is doing OK.