Dear Tyler Gray,
I can attest that the evidence that the Church of Scientology is responsible for these threatening letters and DVDs is really quite strong.
The church of Scientology has already publicly confirmed that they made the content of that DVD in the New York Times:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03152008/gossip/pagesix/toms_church_counterattacks_101990.htm
"A spokesperson for the Church of Scientology said, "We absolutely made the videos."
"We have researchers that have found these men. When you get death threats and bomb threats directly going after the church, we don't take it lightly." "
It should be noted of course that a Clearwater court has dismissed two injunctions against Anonymous as the 'Church' was unable to supply proof for their terrorism claims.
Only the Church of Scientology would have access to high resolution footage for DVD production.
There are several reported cases of receiving copies of this footage in DVD format, with full DVD resolution 16:9 aspect content, that could have only come from the source of the footage, the 'hurch of Scientology.
1. Another minor being served by "Pope Boko, Ruppel & Burn. LLP" (full scans, and photo of the DVD being handed out): http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?postid=340993968#post340994035
2. G. Allen was merely an observer of the Anonymous protests on 02/10/08, was both served with the same legal letter and DVD mentioned in your story and also was included on an injunction sought by the Church of Scientology, the same injunction that also falsely accused a merely passing Starbucks employee ( http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article416511.ece )
G. Allen, a retired with honours serviceman, wrote an account of receiving a similar legal letter and DVD on his blog, including scans of the legal letters. On this occasion the letter served was via "Pope Boko, Ruppel & Burn. LLP" (the images are small on the blog as they have been resized , but right click "view image" for larger versions)
http://blackfish.biz/allen/?p=246 :G. Allens Blog
3. http://forums.enturbulation.org/showthread.php?t=5682&highlight=Latham+Watkins : user "gregg"'s account of receiving a legal letter and DVD from Latham & Watkins.
Scans of the letters included in "gregg"'s posts :
http://img329.imageshack.us/my.php?image=document0001uu1.jpg
http://img171.imageshack.us/my.php?image=document0002fk4.jpg
Users "the anti" and "dwpirate" have also stated they have received similar.
After these events the 'Church' apparently started also sending these accusative DVDs to members of the press.
RadarOnline quotes a representative of the Church of Scientology : "It is not true that lawyers from any firm representing the Church have visited anyone. If anyone is suggesting otherwise, that is false."
I put it to you that this representative is either :
1. Reporting the truth biased towards their aims: perhaps the person physically delivering the letter was indeed not a lawyer, but the letter was certainly from a law firm.
2. Not aware of the facts and has chosen the default attack stance of the 'Church' against all critics, calling your source a liar.
3. Fully aware of the facts, in denial and maintaining the Church of Scientology's ad hominem attack stance: lying in full knowledge of the lie.
Dear Tyler Gray,
I can attest that the evidence that the Church of Scientology is responsible for these threatening letters and DVDs is really quite strong.
The church of Scientology has already publicly confirmed that they made the content of that DVD in the New York Times:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03152008/gossip/pagesix/toms_church_counterattacks_101990.htm
"A spokesperson for the Church of Scientology said, "We absolutely made the videos."
"We have researchers that have found these men. When you get death threats and bomb threats directly going after the church, we don't take it lightly." "
It should be noted of course that a Clearwater court has dismissed two injunctions against Anonymous as the 'Church' was unable to supply proof for their terrorism claims.
Only the Church of Scientology would have access to high resolution footage for DVD production.
There are several reported cases of receiving copies of this footage in DVD format, with full DVD resolution 16:9 aspect content, that could have only come from the source of the footage, the 'hurch of Scientology.
1. Another minor being served by "Pope Boko, Ruppel & Burn. LLP" (full scans, and photo of the DVD being handed out): http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?postid=340993968#post340994035
2. G. Allen was merely an observer of the Anonymous protests on 02/10/08, was both served with the same legal letter and DVD mentioned in your story and also was included on an injunction sought by the Church of Scientology, the same injunction that also falsely accused a merely passing Starbucks employee ( http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article416511.ece )
G. Allen, a retired with honours serviceman, wrote an account of receiving a similar legal letter and DVD on his blog, including scans of the legal letters. On this occasion the letter served was via "Pope Boko, Ruppel & Burn. LLP" (the images are small on the blog as they have been resized , but right click "view image" for larger versions)
http://blackfish.biz/allen/?p=246 :G. Allens Blog
3. http://forums.enturbulation.org/showthread.php?t=5682&highlight=Latham+Watkins : user "gregg"'s account of receiving a legal letter and DVD from Latham & Watkins.
Scans of the letters included in "gregg"'s posts :
http://img329.imageshack.us/my.php?image=document0001uu1.jpg
http://img171.imageshack.us/my.php?image=document0002fk4.jpg
Users "the anti" and "dwpirate" have also stated they have received similar.
After these events the 'Church' apparently started also sending these accusative DVDs to members of the press.
RadarOnline quotes a representative of the Church of Scientology : "It is not true that lawyers from any firm representing the Church have visited anyone. If anyone is suggesting otherwise, that is false."
I put it to you that this representative is either :
1. Reporting the truth biased towards their aims: perhaps the person physically delivering the letter was indeed not a lawyer, but the letter was certainly from a law firm.
2. Not aware of the facts and has chosen the default attack stance of the 'Church' against all critics, calling your source a liar.
3. Fully aware of the facts, in denial and maintaining the Church of Scientology's ad hominem attack stance: lying in full knowledge of the lie.