http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8385d874.0307090830.34c88148%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: BarbaraSchwarz@excite.com (Barbara Schwarz)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: L. Ron Hubbard never asked psychs for help!
Date: 9 Jul 2003 09:30:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 433
Message-ID: <8385d874.0307090830.34c88148@posting.google.com>
References: <8385d874.0306280756.2f2ca7c3@posting.google.com> <bdl7qh$8rb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
<MPG.196bf3a81dbc721989721@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net> <vg98t9htq1sc1e@corp.supernews.com>
<b05bgvci9f3dped47ihkit7q5jrund9uge@4ax.com> <aHVja2xl.d622c8b0995f0c66efdd54fad3a0e01c@1057377806.cotse.net>
<bdhdgvkk3r6puvfds66t07v8nescf5uhlm@4ax.com> <3F06EA1F.3040608@cox.net>
<573lgvsjga3t61i1s6dpkuc5l2vupk8rsm@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.127.246.67
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1057768212 27721 127.0.0.1 (9 Jul 2003 16:30:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Jul 2003 16:30:12 GMT
Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<573lgvsjga3t61i1s6dpkuc5l2vupk8rsm@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 08:09:19 -0700, grouchomatic
> <grouchomatic@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Gerry Armstrong wrote:
> >> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:03:26 -0800 (AKDT), "blackdog"
> >> <blackdog-no-spam@hoy.cotse.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Gerry Armstrong wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Now, just to head off one or another op's claim that the
"Admissions,"
I read some of your long ramblings on how you justify your breaking
the laws and attacking L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.Do you know
what, Gerry Armstrong? Scientology wasn't a cult before you joined.
Ron was never a cult leader, he hated all kind of cult around him and
his personality, but you *are* a cultist. You were one in the 70s and
you are one now, an "Attack L.Ron Hubbard and Scientology in favor of
still existing Nazi Germany cultist". "Nice" career, Gerry. What
a
wasted pitiful life being on the wrong side and working for the WWII
losers.
Barbara Schwarz
> >>>>or, as they're also called, the "Affirmations,"
are forged, see where
> >>>>in the cultists' criminal contract they acknowledge their
> >>>>authenticity.
> >>>>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-
> >>>
> >>>1986.html#7Eb
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Your case would be a bit stronger if we could see a scan of
the
> >>>actual, signed release form rather than a mock-up of it.
> >>
> >>
> >> It isn't a form, but here is a scan of the "contract."
> >> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/c420153-mutual-release.pdf
> >
> >I'm sure you've been asked this before, but did your attorney or their
> >attorney ever raise the issue of the legality of entering into a
> >settlement and non-disclosure agreement that is "contrary to public
> >policy" or that breaches "the publics right to know."
> >
> >There is a provision in the California Civil Code as there is in the
> >Federal Code that makes such agreements not only unenforceable, but
> >prohibits the entering into of such agreements in such cases were the
> >information being withheld from the public either conceals a crime, the
> >intent to commit a crime, or any other unlawful conduct or any conduct
> >which might result in injury or death. AFAIK or remember, there is a
> >pretty broad listing of things that you cannot agree to conceal. The
> >court itself is supposed to refuse to sanction such agreements.
> >
> >The way I read the settlement you are required not to disclose your
> >knowledge of any of their unlawful acts and that you're not to cooperate
> >with any governmental agency investigating their unlawful acts. When
> >they sued you for breach of contract did you raise any affirmative
> >defenses based upon the unenforceability of such provisions?
> >
> >Grouch
>
> I was defended by attorney Ford Greene
> http://www.csj.org/infoserv_profile/greene_ford.htm
> throughout most of the litigation of the "breach of contract" cases,
> up until the cult obtained its summary judgment. Ford definitely
> raised the public policy and the public's right-to-know issues.
>
> You are right about the areas you're looking at. The subject
> "contract" is legally unenforceable because the information it
> suppresses does indeed include the commission of crimes. The
> "contract" itself also has the legally impermissible purpose of
> obstructing justice. Both these points have become more obvious and
> more egregious, rather than less, during the lifetime of the
> "contract" and the cult's efforts to judicially enforce it.
>
> Yes, I included affirmative defenses in my answers to Scientology's
> complaints, and asserted these defenses throughout the litigation. I
> don't have my answers in the earlier cases webbed, but they contain
> most of the affirmative defenses I've pled in my answer to the cult's
> latest lawsuit, which I have webbed.
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/armstrong-answer-cv021632.html
> The affirmative defenses begin on page 42, and that's a good place to
> start. It's a lot of reading, but I think it's worthwhile for an
> understanding of the case, if anyone really wants to understand it.
> The "public policy" defense is at p. 72. See also the affirmative
> defense of "illegality" at p. 43.
>
> It should be noted that the Marin County judge disposed of the case on
> summary judgment, denying me a trial. His assertion that there were
> no triable issues is so ridiculous that only malfeasance explains it.
> I suggest reading my appellant's opening brief for an understanding of
> the case, the judge's rulings and the triable issues.
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/appeal/aob-a075027.html
>
> My "separate statement" of disputed facts provides the facts and
> details the evidence supporting my claim that there are triable issues
> that could not be disposed of, except improperly of course, on summary
> judgment.
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/sep-stmt-20-coa-1995-09-18.html
>
> And I suggest reading Ford's opposition to the cult's motion for
> summary judgment, citing to the separate statement.
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/def-opp-mtn-sadj-20th-coa.html
>
> One of the really ridiculous interpretations of law by the judge, but
> necessary in order to dispose of the case on summary judgment, and
> depended on by everyone who argues the cult's position is: "First
> Amendment rights may be waived by contract." See, e.g.,
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/appeal/aob-a075027.html
>
> Although the statement is true, the judge's interpretation is
> ludicrous. The meaning he gives to the statement is that *all* first
> amendment rights may be waived by contract, and that courts can
> judicially enforce the waiver of all such rights. Then the judge
> refused to consider any circumstances involving any rights that might
> make his interpretation and rulings based on that interpretation
> erroneous. If he had considered these circumstances, rather than
> dismissing my mountian of Constitutional defenses with this single
> unreasoned phrase, he would have had to grant me a trial. And I don't
> think that was his deal with Scientology.
>
> Think about this. A person has a first amendment right to not pray.
> He could sign a contract in which he waived his right to not pray. Is
> it reasonable that the U.S. secular courts would jail the person for
> not praying?
>
> Let's say that an Islamic fundamentalist sect hires some slick lawyers
> and starts contracting its parishioners to never say the name "Jesus."
> One day, one of the Muslims decides to change his religion. He goes to
> church and says the name. The lawyers for the Islamic organization sue
> him. Would the secular court send out Sheriffs to pick him, and jail
> him every time he said the name? Jesus!
>
> Or how about if the KKK has its members sign a contract in which they
> agree to never help a black person ("he will not voluntarily
> assist or cooperate with any person adverse to the KKK"). One day
> this fellow sheds his sheet, and goes out and helps a black person.
> Will the U.S. courts throw the ex-KKKer in the slammer for helping the
> black person? Would they enforce a $50,000 liquidated damages clause?
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
>
> The class of persons that the contract states that I may not help is
> in fact a religious class, created by the cult's religious dogma and
> religious criteria. The parallel then would be sending a person to
> jail who had signed a contract with a neo-nazi cult (perhaps to get
> them to stop fair gaming his lawyer) if the person helped a Jew. Would
> any U.S. court jail someone for helping Jews because it violated a
> contract? Such a contract would be judicially unenforceable, a sick
> joke, and would probably get its lawyer creators in serious trouble.
> The Scientology cult's "contract" is just as judicially unenforceable,
> and just as sick.
>
> Because Scientology chose to call itself a "religion," it necessarily
> lost much of the right it might otherwise have had to silence people
> about their knowledge of and experiences in the cult. If the cult had
> chosen to be a private intelligence organization it conceivably could
> silence people by contract about their knowledge and experiences. But
> by calling itself a "religion," the cult put itself on a level
with
> other "religions," wherein it is inconceivable that they would
silence
> anyone about his "religious knowledge" or "religious experiences."
Or
> rather, where it is inconceivable that any secular court would
> judicially silence a person about his "religious knowledge" or
> "religious experiences."
>
> "Religious experiences," of course, must include "religious
beliefs."
> Just consider then a secular court ordering someone hunted down and
> jailed because he expressed his belief that "God is holy," even
if he
> signed a "contract" with an atheist organization not to do so.
Because
> the Scientology cult chose to call itself a "religion," the statement
> of belief that "God is holy" is on a par with the statement of
belief
> that "L. Ron Hubbard is a lying, vicious, monstrous scumbag," or
the
> statement of belief that "David Miscavige is a lying, vicious
> miniscule scumbag." These are expressions of "religious belief."
>
> When secular courts get used to jail people for expressing their
> religious beliefs, there is something dreadfully wrong. And in the US
> Courts' interpretation of Scientology's "contracts" there definitely
> is. Since no court would jail someone for expressing his Christian
> beliefs, or Jewish beliefs, or Islamic beliefs, or Buddhist beliefs,
> then the Scientology "religion" is being treated with a favoritism
> that makes it, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the State
> "religion."
>
> Because the subject "contract" unlawfully deprives me of so many
> rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and laws, the "contract"
is
> an instrument, and essential evidence, in the cult's massive violation
> of 18 U.S.C. §241. Other elements of this crime include the cult's
> fraud and duress to obtain my signature on their "contract," including
> all the fair gaming of Michael Flynn and myself before the
> "settlement," all the cult's post-"settlement" fair game,
all the
> cult's efforts to enforce the "contract," and all the cult's efforts
> to vilify me and cause me trouble internationally with their unlawful,
> and unlawfully obtained Marin Superior Court orders.
>
> The conspirators in this crime are all the "beneficaries" identified
> by the "contract," which include every Scientology corporation,
> organization or affiliated entity, and all of their directors,
> officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns. That is
> a gargantuan global criminal conspiracy. But it not even slightly far
> fetched when one considers that each one of these companies, entities
> or individuals is also, by the same "contract," willfully and
> flagrantly violating their cult's, or their "religion's," own
> "creed."
>
> Silencing me is so important to virtually every Scientologist that
> they would violate their own creed and participate in a federal crime,
> for which they could be imprisoned for up to ten years. It is my
> belief, which I believe religiously, that among these thousands of
> criminals there are a considerable number who quite willingly would go
> one step further to avoid catastrophe for their cult and prison for
> themselves, and have me assassinated.
>
> Since the cult's "contract" and its enforcement, and my experiences
as
> fair game, constitute a federal crime, I cannot be legally silenced
> about that crime any more than I could be silenced about my knowledge
> of murder. Since the "contract" is for the commission of a crime,
> specifically the deprivation of guaranteed rights by threat, it is
> legally unenforceable, and I cannot be forced to participate in that
> crime.
>
> This would be similar to a murder contract between the murderer and
> his victim. A court cannot lawfully force the victim to submit to the
> murder any more than the court can force the murderer to commit
> murder.
>
> I really like, and take to heart, what LA Superior Court Judge Bruce
> R. Geernaert stated when the cult tried to enforce the "contract"
by
> motion in 1991:
>
> [Quote]
>
> So my belief is Judge Breckenridge, being a very careful judge....if
> he had been presented that whole agreement and if he had been asked to
> order its performance, he would have dug his feet in because that is
> one .... I'll say one of the most ambiguous, one-sided agreements I
> have ever read. And I would not have ordered the enforcement of hardly
> any of the terms if I had been asked to, even on the threat that, okay
> the case is not settled.
> I know we like to settle cases. But we don't like to settle cases and,
> in effect, prostrate the court system into making an order which is
> not fair or in the public interest.
>
> [End Quote]
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/geernaert-1991-12-23.html
>
> Judge Breckenridge, of course, is the LA Superior Court Judge who
> presided over the litigation, Scientology v. Armstrong, LASC C 420153,
> which the "contract" was to "settle." See, Scientology
v. Armstrong
> (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917.
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/appeal/283cal.rptr.917.html
> And see the decision, which became the judgment, from which the cult
> appealed.
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.html
>
> After their enforcement action was rejected by Judge Geernaert, who
> had inherited the original Scientology v. Armstrong case when Judge
> Breckenridge retired, Scientology forum shopped and landed the Marin
> County Superior Court, which, in the person of Judge Thomas, was,
> unlike Judges Breckenridge and Geernaert, very willing to prostrate
> the Marin court system for Scientology and make orders that are not
> fair and in the public interest.
>
> What Judge Thomas did for Scientology in my case in fact constitutes
> another federal crime, specifically 18 U.S.C. §242, the deprivation
of
> rights under color of law. And, of course, I cannot be legally
> judicially silenced about that crime as well.
>
> Gerry
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> Nevertheless, if the CofS representatives *did* actually sign
the
> >>>mutual release as you have presented it, that is, in itself,
hardly
> >>>conclusive proof that Hubbard did indeed author the "Admissions"
or
> >>>"Affirmations."
> >>
> >>
> >> No one was saying it was "conclusive proof." The preponderance
of the
> >> evidence, however, including Hubbard's own writing to the Court
about
> >> his documents in Scientology v. Armstrong, LA Superior Court case
no.
> >> C 420153, was sufficient to "prove" that he was the author.
I would
> >> say that the evidence presented was viewed by the judge as "conclusive
> >> proof," and also by Scientology's lawyers as "conclusive
proof;"
> >> otherwise they would have challenged the document's authenticity.
> >>
> >>
> >>> This document was allegedly taken by you from the LRH archives
and
> >>>presented as a Hubbard-authored document in the court case the
CofS
> >>>brought against you in the early 80s.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, that's a false allegation. The document was given to me by Omar
> >> Garrison, and parts were entered into evidence in the Scientology
v.
> >> Armstrong case, after authentication. See:
> >> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.html
> >> Appendix at 14:18-21
> >>
> >>
> >>>The little that I can find on the
> >>>Net states that the document was in Hubbard's handwriting, as
opposed
> >>>to the typed "copy" or partial "copy" that
you posted in March of 2000.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well obviously. In fact I stated that in the post you refer to.
> >>
> >>
> >>> What should be emphasized here is that you, and your attorney
at the
> >>>time, offered this as an *actual* Hubbard-authored document.
My opinion
> >>>is that the CofS' main concern at this time was the recovery
of these
> >>>stolen documents and that the idea that this and possibly other
> >>>"documents" taken from the Hubbard archives might be
deliberately
> >>>planted pieces of disinformation was just not foremost in their
minds.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, your opinion is wrong. The cult and the attorneys knew beyond
any
> >> doubt that the document was Hubbard's. That is why they didn't
> >> challenge its authenticity. There is no doubt that if they thought
> >> they could have challenged the authenticity of any of the Armstrong
> >> documents they would have done so in a flash.
> >>
> >> They would have been, I'm sure they realized, extremely foolish
to
> >> challenge the authentic document's authenticity. If they had averred
> >> that it wasn't Hubbard's document, and that he therefore made no
> >> possessory claim to it, the document could have been released to
me on
> >> the spot. I could have then made a billion copies of the authentic
> >> document, which everyone would know was in fact from Hubbard. The
cult
> >> lawyers did the only thing they reasonably could have done -- accept
> >> the truth that the document is authentic. Which, it is.
> >>
> >> The CL Op is what the cult came up with after admitting to the
> >> authenticity of the "Admissions" and after losing the
case. This cult
> >> op fakes an attack on the cult's own lawyers, claiming they forged
the
> >> Hubbard letter to the court, and conspired with my attorneys and
me
> >> to, among other things, authenticate the Hubbard documents and get
him
> >> declared a pathological liar.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Frederic Rice raised this question in a recent post and I hope
to
> >>>have a more detailed response for him in a short while. Needless
to
> >>>say, I hold the opinion that the "Affirmations" very
well may *not*
> >>>have been authored by Hubbard.
> >>
> >>
> >> Since you are a Scientologist, you necessarily have a gargantuan
bias.
> >> An allegation of bias, of course, allows a very broad inquiry.
> >>
> >> But putting bias aside, will you please provide any evidence you
have
> >> that the "Admissions" were not authored by Hubbard.
> >>
> >> Obviously, since I know they were authored by Hubbard, I know you
> >> cannot have any actual evidence that they were not. I am still very
> >> interested, however, in what you present as evidence for your
> >> conclusion.
> >>
> >> I have provided a great deal of evidence for my conclusion in various
> >> statements or sworn testimony. The cult has never challenged the
> >> document's authenticity. Some anonymous Scientologist posters like
> >> yourself, of course, have, but that fact too weighs in favor of
> >> authentication.
> >>
> >> The writing sounds like Hubbard's. The historical facts included
in
> >> the writing match Hubbard's history. The personality and
> >> psychopathology evidenced by the writing are consistent with what
is
> >> known of Hubbard in his life and other writings.
> >>
> >> So it would be very interesting to see what you have to offer to
> >> challenge the writing's authenticity.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Since you posted to this thread and since you were intimately
> >>>involved with the Hubbard archives in the past I ask these questions:
> >>>
> >>> (1) Did anyone else have access to the Hubbard archives during
your
> >>>tenure as the archivist other than yourself? If so, who?
> >>>
> >>> (2) Exactly when and where did you first discover the "Admissions"
> >>>or "Affirmations."
> >>>
> >>> (3) Upon discovering them, did you speak to anyone about them
or
> >>>notify anyone of their existence? If so, to whom did you speak
or
> >>>correspond and what were the details of the communication(s)?
> >>>
> >>> (4) Did Robert Vaughn Young know of the existence of the
> >>>"Affirmations" or "Admissions" prior to your
taking leave of the
> >>>archivist post?
> >>>
> >>> (5) Did you speak with Robert Vaughn Young about the "Affirmations"
> >>>or "Admissions" prior to leaving the archivist post?
If so, what was
> >>>discussed?
> >>>
> >>> (6) During your service in the Sea Organization did you have
> >>>knowledge of anyone who had the ability to copy Hubbard's handwriting?
> >>>I'm not speaking of the just his signature here but his actual
> >>>handwriting. If so, who had the ability to do this?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>
> >>
> >> In answer to most of the questions you raise, I suggest you read
my
> >> introduction in this post:
> >> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2000-03-11.html
> >>
> >> And I suggest reading these two posts by other posters. Phineas
Fogg:
> >> Message-ID: <3db3162d@news2.lightlink.com>
> >> Caroline Letkeman:
> >> Message-ID: <v0f7ruktf3na2cm8q2stcn5nlckkgnd5u3@4ax.com>
> >>
> >> And now, will you please provide what you have as evidence on which
> >> you base your conclusion regarding the "Admissions'" authenticity.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> Gerry
> >>
> >> © Gerry Armstrong
> >> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
>
> © Gerry Armstrong
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org