basil

Perhaps, but without knowing the nature of the complaint (and possibly we aren't able to be told) there isn't much we can do except continue to publicise the book and educate the public about another assault on free speech from the cult.

xenulondon

I'm not scared of these fags! I don't own a newspaper or a TV station. I certainly won't be libeling anyone.

Plus absolutely everything we do is legal anyway.


Would this be policed by the Met or City police? Oh, I've just realised, it's pretty damn close to Queen Victoria Street!

basil

Maybe, just given their nature of being a law firm, and working for the cult, do you think they'd actually have to have any grounds for complaint without making something up to cause Anonymous problems?

Remember it is the scientology mantra to use the law to harrass rather than win - and do we know for sure that any of the partners working there are not scifags?

hartley patterson

And you would instantly be understood to be another extremist group who want 'rights' and free speech for themselves but not for their opponents.

So what are you proposing? That people should not be allowed legal advice or representation if you don't like them? That alleged murderers should have to defend themselves in court because they are obviously guilty? Fine, let's not bother with a trial at all, waste of public money.

To be clear, this is a BIG ethical problem for the legal profession. No lawyer wants to represent the bad guys, everyone wants to be the hero like on TV. They get round this by 'cab ranking' - briefs are handed out by clerks to the next lawyer in line, and they don't get to pick and choose. Any lawyer who does cherry pick is looked down on by his colleagues.

No, I'm sorry, this would be a very bad thing to do. The villains in this case are not lawyers, they are the booksellers who are trying to conceal their refusal to sell a book. They should be told they ARE making an ethical decision and not be allowed to pretend they are making a purely financial one. If you feel a burning desire to picket, go to Waterstones or WHSmiths.

The Cult of Eternal Litigation

VMs in Haiti 2010

xenulondon

These are specialist libel & defamation lawyers. They pride themselves on striking fear into every newspaper and magazine editor.

From their own website:

AstleyOnWheels

I think I understand what you're saying, but it really doesn't seem to be the case that the Church of Scientology just happens to be one of their clients. The Guardian's article about them goes into a lot of it, but Carter-Ruck pretty much prided himself on ruthlessly suing people for libel.

>=3

Leaving Scientology Resource Guide

anonymous451

No. We are drawing attention to the cult using it's ill-gotten gains/financial power yet again to silence an ex member from telling his life story. It's his. He owns it.

No. Why are you comparing the idea of an individual criminal with a calculated organised mafia style sect based on coercion, thought reform and bullying that has systematically destroyed peoples lives for over 1/2 a century?

We are not discussing 'the legal profession'. We are discussing a single firm of lawyers who CHOOSE to work for scientology.

I have no idea why you are saying the book sellers have a choice in this. Please can you explain further?

Vir

Not really, no.

These are not defense attorneys. Think of them more like a prosecutor who charges somebody with a crime even if they know they're likely innocent. Totally different situation. Your statement is very much correct when it comes to defending somebody in a criminal case, but not when it comes to a starting/threatening to file a civil case with the aim of suppressing truthful speech, and by supressing that speech to facilitate further abuses of religious freedom by the CoS.

No, you see if these lawyers don't want to represent Scientology in this case they can just refuse their business and there might be no lawsuit. Lawyers have to advise their clients on legal matters, including whether or not they should start court proceedings at all.

The bookstores don't carry the book for fear of being sued. You might want them to take up the fight on behalf of the author, but when don't do this it doesn't make them the enemy.

Scientology, their lawyers, and the people who made the libel situation the way it is (legislators and higher courts) would all be more on-target for demonstrations than the bookstores. Of course you could always hold a protest at a bookstore to draw attention to the situation, and ask them to get more guts, but they're not the villains of the situation.

Norway: AnonNorway Ning | Japan: JapanAnon, サイエントロジー | New comics site: Anon Comix
Jeff Stone | What is Dianetics? | I'm on Twitter and Brightkite as NorwAnon.

hartley patterson

Of course the cult hired the most feared libel specialists. They'd be crazy not to!

I'm not trying to defend rich and greedy lawyers. What I am defending is the wider issue of legal representation. If you are suggesting that any lawyer should not work for the cult BECAUSE they are bad guys, that is not good. If you are saying that lawyers should not break the law and should behave ethically, fine - but that's not a specifically Scientology related issue.

If you go ahead, you must try to make it clear that you do not object in any way, shape or form to the cult hiring lawyers and instructing them, nor to those lawyers acting within the law. What you are objecting to is the cult using the threat of legal action to suppress criticism of itself.

I think that point is best made outside cult shops as at present, to our political representatives and to everyone that has dealings with the cult on a voluntary and poorly informed basis. It is not best made by getting diverted into attacking anyone else. Getting diverted has been the downfall of many protest groups, it is splittist, counter-revolutionary and must be resolutely opposed!

The Cult of Eternal Litigation

VMs in Haiti 2010

Vir

As long as you're talking about lawyers defending people I agree with you.

Revolutions are off-target.

Stay on target. But there are many ways to hit at the target. Protesting their attack lawyers is one of them.

Norway: AnonNorway Ning | Japan: JapanAnon, サイエントロジー | New comics site: Anon Comix
Jeff Stone | What is Dianetics? | I'm on Twitter and Brightkite as NorwAnon.

TheBitch

Oh Noes, we are runnin OSA's programs!

Selleck much? Ya do realize just what a flaming paranoid buttmunch you are right? Discussion; know what I mean? I give my view, you rant about yours and see ghosts in every closet and an OSA implant bangin on yer prostate? Yeah, right.... exactly! A con-ver-say-shun. Say it with me! Come on, you can sound it out if you try!

Fukin go back to Peru.

xenulondon

Dude, no-one is attacking anyone. We want to highlight abuse of the legal process. We do not intend to disrupt their business in any way. Nor do we want to discourage anyone using their services -- that would be crazy.

This is an issue of huge public interest. Free speech is being trampled on due to archaic laws that need to be reformed. It is a scandal that most South Park fans in this country have never seen Trapped in the Closet episode.

Culties are trained to expect us (Suppressive Persons). They are never going to listen to logic. It's actually pretty futile.

AstleyOnWheels

I got the impression that this was the thing to protest. It's not an issue with Scientology only, but it will definitely draw negative attention to them. The Streisand effect already seems to be working for The Complex, and this could help if done right.

>=3

Leaving Scientology Resource Guide

TheBitch

This part I agree with, but lawyers are much the same way is I guess what I'm saying. IF they care, they'll sue. Most likely they simply will not care because consideration of the negative impact was something the calculated and costed out way back when they quoted their first retainer.

I was in a torts class once, and a stupid woman raised her hand to make yet another in a stream of endless social commentaries about the law. "But it seems like what we're doing here . . . ," said she to the professor, who once again found himself challenged to maintain a straight face, ". . . is placing a value on human life!"

Of course the class burst into yet another fit of laughter, but a anxious hush quickly fell across the lecture hall as a hundred student's bit back their mirth and waited for the professor to hit her with a "punchline." "My dear woman," he said as he raised himself as high as he could above the lectern, "we are lawyers. That is what we do. Would you prefer we resurrect him?"

Every day I spent in law school was directed at two things: 1) destroying your opponent's arguments - NOT just winning but DESTROYING the opposition; 2) how to bill it out. Seriously, never before or since have I been in a graduate level educational program that was so very fixated on how to clock "billable hours."

Most likely these guys planned for this eventuality a long time ago and have already calculated a response. Whatever it is, you can be sure that IF they act is will be designed in such a way as to maximize billable hours - to ensure someone "pays." I never said they weren't scum... in fact I said they were worse than catfish (bottom feeders), but virtually each and every is motivated far more by the good ol cha-ching than anything else.

Just be aware of that and be really careful of what you say is all I'm saying. Not sure if the target is worth it, is what I'm saying. You're independent operators who don't need my permission, is what I'm saying.

:) It's not a "bad" idea, but you can be sure it's an idea about which the other side has already calculated risks, and for which they've likely already developed an "action plan" based on things like just how much bad press you bring to them. The more successful you are, the more likely they are to try to rain down fire on your heads.

basil

If 'adding to the cost' means that Scientology pays, rather than us, then perhaps it's worth pursuing?

TheBitch

IF that ^ is what it means, then fine. Just make sure that's what it means, and not that you'll be paying 1/2 of your salary to the law partners for the rest of your life while simultaneously reinforcing the idea that they're "unstoppable."

If you're gonna do it, "do it right," but for the life of me I'm not sure what "right" and WIN conditions are for this venture. Just understand that the lawyer's are going to win EITHER WAY. It's entirely how the system was set up. When people die, at least where I learned... first to be paid out of an estate is the funeral home; second, you guessed it - the lawyers.

Lawyers get paid no matter what.

xenulondon

Um, you do understand they can't sue use for libel when we don't own a TV station/magazine/ newspaper? We do everything by the book. The police video tape main protests.

This would be a legal, peaceful protest. I don't see what the big deal is.

anonymous451

This^^^

Scientology has a right to use financial advantage and hire lawyers to intimidate people into silence. They exercise that right. We have a right to protest against them and their tactics. We should exercise that right.

Do you really think there would have been ANY chance of this book NOT being accused of libel for something, anything, by scientology?

This is scientology we're dealing with. It's simply what they do.

You're getting into big (even very reasonable) arguments that are just not applicable right here in regard to the scientology organisation and their hired henchmen.

TheBitch

My one and ONLY question is what if a protester says something actionable that gets quoted in the press and successfully becomes a media shitstorm. If what ya'll do and say is within the letter of the law or media-wise a sparkler instead of a cherry BOMB, then it doesn't matter as damages would be difficult to prove / recover.

Keep it totally factual and make any statements you cannot support ALWAYS begin with, "My own opinion is..." and I agree and think things should be fine. It's very weird, but in the case of this raid "success" (media lets say) puts you in more jeopardy than failure. They're more likely to go over what's said with a fine toothed comb if you get big bunches of press (quite likely since they seem so infamous / unpopular with the press).

You've got a good target; you've convinced me of that with all the headline clippings. The press must loathe them and look for opportunity to hang them high! Good find, but a semi-risky one since the paper's interest is getting you to say something juicy that will CAUSE conflict and sell papers.

If what you're saying is that you cannot be sued under British law for saying something derogatory which you cannot substantiate, for example, "That firm is FULL of bloody liars!" and it makes the front page ("Cult Lawyers 'Bloody Liars!' Says Protester"), and that ONLY the newspaper would be responsible... THEN GO FOR IT BY ALL MEANS!

BorisAnyonymous

everyone already knows carterfuck are evil scumfucks. This is not news. And we're not going to win anything by playing their game. And for obvious reasons we need to stay well within the law. So if there are any script kiddie Reading this DO NOT DDOS THEIR WEBSITE.

But what we can do is bug the shit out of them in ways that will amuse us. Trollcannon time!

Not the ex-CIA bloke, so please stop PMing me to ask whether I was on the grassy knoll, or whether I can help with your homework project on the right to bear arms and arm bears, or the rest of the stupid conspiracy shit everyone seems to want to bug that poor guy with.