From: "Garry Scarff"
Subject: Gerry Armstrong: The Court Jester Speaks
References: <19971111085601.DAA06590@ladder01.news.aol.com> <email@example.com>
Organization: ARSholes Anonymous
> >gerry armstrong
wrote in message <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
> >>On 9 Nov 1997 00:52:08 GMT, "Garry Scarff" <Scarff@iag.net>
> >>>Oh, please, Graham, don't set up a good lawsuit for failure by
> >>>celebrity-seeking ex-Scientologist, particularly one that breaks
> >>>and flees to Canada to evade responsibility. Use Gerry from the
> >>>experience he has had in Scientology; don't let him use your
> >>>a conduit to bring media attention to feed his own self-inflated
> >>>Your Client & Armstrong-Alleged Scientology Squirrel,
> >>>Garry Scarff
> >>I have found it advisable to not give legal advice to lawyers, and
> >>very few times I did violate that convention I still knew that it
Nah! In addition to my
Graham being my attorney, he is a friend who knows
me well enough of my sense of humor.
Knowing its certain foolishness,
I did so only because it was
> >>really important to really important issues. So, putting the facts
> >>aside, I will assume the subject of my offered assistance to Graham
> >>Berry is for you really important to really important issues.
Nope. Your relationship
with Graham is your business. It's not place to
tell Graham what to do.
> >>understand that you ANAL.
Correction, Gerry: I like
anal, I'm not anal, but of course, I don't dump
on my adversaries & flee the country either, but you are entitled to your
cowardice. Nothing personal.
> >>Your advice
to Graham that using me as an expert in my areas of
> >>expertise would "set up [his] good lawsuit for failure"
> >>defamatory and tortious interference with a potential business
Ouch! Big words for a small
You have no facts whatsoever
on which to base such an
Your own comments give
me the basis for making such assertions, Gerry. Not
to mention your slander, false accusations & ridicule. What's good for the
goose, is good for the gander. You want respect? Then demonstrate it.
> No, I have no primary
> No, I don't work for shyster lawyers.
> No. I have never participated in legal whoredom.
> No, my life is not miserable.
> And my Creator gave my life meaning.
> >That is why you further prove yourself an idiot by
> >threatening Scarff's right to free speech on this newsgroup.
Gerry does little to threaten
my free speech on this newsgroup. Besides,
the majority of morons on this newsgroup who condemn free speech have
killfiled me anyway. I speak my mind and I care less if it offends the
Church of Scientology, or those whom condemn it, but I do care about civil
rights, religious freedom and treating people as human beings which escapes
the lot on ARS when it comes to Scientologists, and if by my speaking up
for the rights of Scientologists to enoy the same rights that we all enjoy
offends anyone here, tough shitsky!!
> No, whatever I wrote did not prove me an idiot.
> No, I didn't threaten Scarff's right to free speech in any way.
> One of the balances to free speech, when speech enters the field of
> personal attacks, is the recourse provided by libel law.
Yeah, so ahead & sue
me Gerry. You violate a court order, flee to your
home country to avoid responsibility and you talk "libel law". You've
always been good at talking big words and making threats, with nothing to
back it up. So, are you going to sue me in Canada which has no
jurisdiction over an American citizen, or are going to exercise some guts
and return to the U.S. and do it?
> speech was a personal attack containing and based on falsehood and
> intending to cause damage.
Oh, yeah. My personal opinion
damaged your incredibly inflated sense of
ego, which by the way, no one really notices but you.
Unlike your cult, I do
> anyone's right to free speech in any way.
> Since you've broached the subject, why don't you urge your cult to
> stop suppressing free speech? It is only your cult on this newsgroup
> which threatens free speech and uses the courts to suppress free
I wish Scientology would
do something to shutdown this eccentric loudmouth
for good, or at least give him a good haircut (although I have to admit
when I met him & Julie Christofferson at Ron Wade's friends house in
Portland back in the 80's, he was kind of cute with his short hair)...
> Another of the balances to speech used as Garry uses it, for personal
> attacks based on falsehood, is free speech itself. Garry attacked,
> Garry lied, and I exercised my right to speak freely to respond.
Expressing my personal
opinion based on my personal judgements of you &
your actions doesn't make me a liar Gerry, anymore than your stated
opinions of me in prior posts make you a liar. Personal opinion is just
that but if you choose to believe that you are the Ultimate Purveyor of
what is truth & what is not, knock yourself out, buddy..
> cult maintains that it can say whatever it wants about me, no matter
> how false and no matter how hurtful, and that I cannot respond, or be
> jailed and fined it I do respond. Why don't you speak out against that
> insult to sanity?
Garry Scarff cares not
how Gerry Armstrong responds. Respond freely if that
makes you happy. It's called freedom of speech man, and you are entitled
to it, even if you are a Canadian. (Speaking of course of my ignorance of
the Canadian Constitution).
> > He threatened
> >the very core of what you are and you reacted. He in essence said that
> >you are a very bad legal-whore and you took offense. (believing yourself
> >very good legal-whore)
Legal ho', not whore...
> No, Garry didn't threaten the core of what I am.
Boy, for someone not threatened,
you sure babble & sermonize enough about
> No, I didn't react,
as you understand react.
I would say 472 lines in
this response is a little bit of an overreaction.
> No, I didn't respond
because of Garry's threats.
Garry threatened you? May
I ask how?
> I am grateful for
your interpretation of his statements, because that
> is something essential to maintaining a defamation cause of action.
Go ahead, Gerry. Sue me.
I dare you..
> >>Having the
facts again brought to your attention, and having your
> >>libel protested and refuted, will you please, as a first action to
> >>mitigate the damage done, post to this newsgroup a full correction
> >>the falsehoods contained in your above statement.
> >"mitigate the damage done"? IMHO you are of such questionable
> >character it would be impossible to further damage you.
> This is a good example to elucidate the distinction I was trying to
> make above. I am not threatening your right to free speech. In fact I
> and many people here welcome the day when Scientologists can and do
> speak freely. Your statement "you are of such questionable
> character it would be impossible to further damage you," being false
> and intending indeed to further damage me, is libelous.
Gerry, you need to cut
back on the weed, man. You're slipping more & more
> >>I would think
that your handlers
> >> would realize that my public offering
> >>of my expert assistance to Graham Berry eliminates the threat of
> >>cult lawsuit against him for inducing me to breach its "settlement
I think Graham Berry is
asking for trouble using you as a witness.
> >>Gerry Armstrong