§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §

   

    

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f6058cf6.0211060831.60bbf0bd%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

From: ffracs@hotmail.com (Garry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gerry Armstrong: Bald-faced liar
Date: 6 Nov 2002 08:31:59 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 406
Message-ID: <f6058cf6.0211060831.60bbf0bd@posting.google.com>
References: <t6gcsu03l6mu56i0df0aj7rbp7t5qf77gb@4ax.com> <Xns92BDE0285EF7Cmirelesonicnet@208.201.224.154> <8lmhsuc0791eqv1bcnf76eshj42on8178l@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.182.121.232
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1036600319 11734 127.0.0.1 (6 Nov 2002 16:31:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Nov 2002 16:31:59 GMT


Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<8lmhsuc0791eqv1bcnf76eshj42on8178l@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 05:01:16 GMT, Deana Holmes <mirele@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The following is the entire correspondence between Gerry Armstrong and
> >myself. It does not prove Gerry's argument, that my email to him somehow
> >caused Caroline Letkeman to withdraw herself as a witness from the case.
>
> What you've stated here proves part of my allegation. You now admit
> you sent these e-mails, and I also accept that you are also admitting
> that, as I state in one of the e-mails, you did indeed attack me on
> this subject on the chat channel.
>
> The other part of the proof of my allegation is the effect you caused
> in Caroline and me with your actions. I have told you what that effect
> was. You have no evidence whatsoever that it was anything but what
> I've stated it was.
>
> Hence I have proven my allegation. And it is you therefore who is the
> liar.
>
> But worse, you are now acting to compound what you did originally by
> newly attacking the targets of your undermining.
>
> > It
> >also shows that I was speaking only for myself when I wrote to Gerry. I am
> >posting it here because Gerry publicly accused me of things that are not
> >true.
>
> Now you're lying Deana.
>
> In connection with Caroline's testifying in the Lisa McPherson case,
> here is what I accused you of doing:
>
> [Quote]
>
> Following my April 9, 2002 post to a.r.s., the intention of which was
> to try to enhance Caroline's security in Tampa/Clearwater while she
> was there, I received a snotty, pretended thoughtless e-mail from
> Deana on this subject, which I took as an attack, and an effort to
> also undermine Caroline's participation as a witness. I replied,
> politely asking Deana to support her comments, and she sent me back an
> even more snotty e-mail, refusing to explain her earlier snottiness or
> her "reasoning."
>
> Since Deana was presenting herself at that time as the voice for the
> family of Lisa McPherson and the McPherson litigation on a.r.s. and
> the Internet, her attack on Caroline and me and her refusal to
> communicate decently was a significant factor in Caroline's eventual
> decision to not testify.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> > Gerry should not have the ability to hide behind his email when he is
> >telling bald-faced lies.
>
> I have not been hiding behind any e-mail. As you can read below, I
> asked you, because of your attacks on chat, if I could post our e-mail
> exchanges to a.r.s.
>
> [Quote]
>
> Since this is a subject which is important and since you've been
> making this ridiculous charge of "indiscretion" about me, do you mind
> if I post your communication and my response to a.r.s. to clear the
> air?
>
> [End Quote]
>
> You did not give me permission, but now that you've been caught lying
> you post the e-mail exchange *without* asking permission. This is
> responsible behavior, right?
>
> The e-mail exchanges are as I recall them, and they show that Deana
> Holmes indeed acted to undermine Caroline's participation as a witness
> in the Lisa McPherson case.
>
> As shown, Deana, you did the same on chat. You tried to undermine
> Caroline and me. You had no concern whatsoever for Caroline's
> security. You were yourself indiscreet. You were at a minimum
> thoughtless, and I tend to believe deliberately acting to attack
> Caroline and me.
>
> This is supported by your set of obvious deliberate, undermining
> attacks in the past few days.
>
> The effect your actions had in April this year was exactly as I have
> stated. Maybe you are so naturally hostile that you think your
> nastiness is actually support for people, but I don't believe that
> common, average people think that at all.
>
> Caroline was going into a dangerous situation. She was giving a great
> deal of herself, putting herself at risk, wanting only to help Lisa,
> the estate and justice, for no remuneration whatsoever. I was her
> support and her confidant, and I was looking out for her security.
> You, Deana, acted to undermine me, Caroline, Dandar and the Lisa
> McPherson litigation.
>
> Now, worse, you refuse to acknowledge that you did anything wrong,
> even when you yourself possess the evidence.
>
> >
> >In the future, Gerry, if you're offended about something I wrote, don't
> >make up lies and post them to endear yourself to others. It will come back
> >on you.
>
> Deana, you are lying, you are acting irresponsibly, and your lying and
> irresponsibility is still underming Caroline and me, and worse, the
> case you say you care so much about.
>
> >
> >[Gerry Armstrong's original post]
> >
> >From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
> >Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> >Subject: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
> >Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:13:13 -0700
> >Organization: Lightlink Internet
> >Lines: 42
> >Message-ID: <c907buk3elp26ltjpdk9fq2gpvlggin6os@4ax.com>
> >NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
> >X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.232.125.58
> >X-Original-Trace: 9 Apr 2002 21:16:33 -0400, 216.232.125.58
> >
> >
> >Scientology knows all about this, so there's no sense to withhold the
> >fact from our group of friends and supporters.
> >
> >I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
> >litigation.
> >
> >I understand that Caroline was named by Ken Dandar in court on March
> >28 as a witness in the Lisa McPherson case.
> >
> >This is of course very scary to us both, because Caroline is already
> >fair game, already a target for her famous essay, for her studied
> >website http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/, her well reasoned, well
> >researched and gentle essays and comments on a.r.s., her nagging
> >demand for a refund of all the money Scientology ripped off, her utter
> >defiance of David Miscavige personally in all this fair game, her
> >steadfast goal to be reunited with her daughter, and her unshakeable
> >connection to me.
> >
> >And it is also scary because the Lisa McPherson litigation involves
> >powers and players far beyond whatever the pleadings say. Others whose
> >task she is being asked to do have been fair gamed from the case.
> >
> >She is, as God would have it, the best possible expert on Scientology
> >that no money could buy. She has a mind to die for. She's also very
> >new to all this, and will be for various periods of time a long way
> >from where she now calls home.
> >
> >I hope the Tampa Bay opposition will connect up with her, because she
> >really is vulnerable in this part of the world doing what she's doing,
> >and because for obvious security reasons I have to be here.
> >
> >We thought our friends and supporters would want to know.
> >
> >She sure is in my prayers in all this.
> >
> >(c) Gerry Armstrong
> >
> >
> >[My email to Gerry]
> >
> >Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
> >Newsgroups: sonic:alt.religion.scientology
> >To: Gerry Armstrong <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
> >References: <c907buk3elp26ltjpdk9fq2gpvlggin6os@4ax.com>
> >Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:44:32 -0700
> >Lines: 12
> >X-ID: <Default> Deana M.
> >Holmes mirele@sonic.net mirele@sonic.net Knights of Xenu,
> >Valley of the Sun Chapter mirelesonicnet C:\XNEWS\sig.txt
> >X-Status: 27
> >
> >On 09 Apr 2002, you wrote in alt.religion.scientology:
> >
> >> I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
> >> litigation.
> >
> >Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't want to
> >try this on the Internet. I'm not sure why you felt possessed to announce
> >this to the world but it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own
> >opinion.)
> >
> >Deana Holmes
> >mirele@sonic.net
> >
> >[Gerry's first email response to me]
> >
> >Received: by ultra.sonic.net (mbox mirele)
> > (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Tue Apr 9 19:11:09 2002)
> >X-From_: gerryarmstrong@telus.net Tue Apr 9 19:10:19 2002
> >Return-Path: gerryarmstrong@telus.net
> >Received: from priv-edtnes04-hme0.telusplanet.net (fepout2.telus.net
> >[199.185.220.237])
> > by turbo.sonic.net (8.11.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id g3A2AJZ07652
> > for <mirele@sonic.net>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 19:10:19 -0700
> >X-envelope-info: <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
> >Received: from user.telus.net ([216.232.125.58])
> > by priv-edtnes04-hme0.telusplanet.net
> > (InterMail vM.5.01.04.01 201-253-122-122-101-20011014) with ESMTP
> > id <20020410021013.UCVH20279.priv-edtnes04-
> >hme0.telusplanet.net@user.telus.net>
> > for <mirele@sonic.net>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 20:10:13 -0600
> >Message-Id: <4.3.2.20020409185107.00b97e00@pop.telus.net>
> >X-Sender: a6b73032@pop.telus.net
> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
> >Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:09:50 -0700
> >To: "Deana M. Holmes" <mirele@sonic.net>
> >From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
> >Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
> >In-Reply-To: <200204100142.g3A1fxZ21002@turbo.sonic.net>
> >References: <c907buk3elp26ltjpdk9fq2gpvlggin6os@4ax.com>
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> >X-PMFLAGS: 36176000 0 1 P79D50.CNM
> >
> >At 06:42 PM 4/9/02 -0700, you wrote:
> >>On 09 Apr 2002, you wrote in alt.religion.scientology:
> >>
> >> > I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
> >> > litigation.
> >>
> >>Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't want to
> >>try this on the Internet.
> >
> >What does this have to do with trying the case on the Internet?
> >
> >You report, or somebody reports, things.
> >
> >Has a case ever been tried on the Internet? What do you mean?
> >
> >> I'm not sure why you felt possessed to announce
> >>this to the world but it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own
> >>opinion.)
> >
> >How could it possibly be indiscreet? Scientology knows.
> >
> >If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think it's a bad philosophy.
> >
> >Why do you say I felt possessed when I most clearly wasn't?
> >
> >The question is, why, if Scientology knows, would you feel possessed in
> >this circumstance to withhold the information from the world?
> >
> >But surely you understand that Caroline's security is more important than
> >her testimony in the Lisa McPherson case, even if to it is added the
> >advantage you gain by your almost certainly inadvisable discretion.
> >
> >Do you think I have no right to be involved in Caroline's security?
> >
> >Gerry
> >
> >
> >>Deana Holmes
> >>mirele@sonic.net
> >
> >[Gerry's second email response to me]
> >
> >Received: by buzz.sonic.net (mbox mirele)
> > (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Wed Apr 17 07:01:05 2002)
> >X-From_: gerryarmstrong@telus.net Wed Apr 17 06:57:55 2002
> >Return-Path: gerryarmstrong@telus.net
> >Received: from priv-edtnes16-hme0.telusplanet.net (defout.telus.net
> >[199.185.220.240])
> > by turbo.sonic.net (8.11.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id g3HDvt119045
> > for <mirele@sonic.net>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:57:55 -0700
> >X-envelope-info: <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
> >Received: from user.telus.net ([216.232.120.199])
> > by priv-edtnes16-hme0.telusplanet.net
> > (InterMail vM.5.01.04.02 201-253-122-122-102-20011128) with ESMTP
> > id <20020417135753.KJUU23644.priv-edtnes16-
> >hme0.telusplanet.net@user.telus.net>
> > for <mirele@sonic.net>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:57:53 -0600
> >Message-Id: <4.3.2.20020413081202.00b81690@pop.telus.net>
> >X-Sender: a6b73032@pop.telus.net
> >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
> >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:56:07 -0700
> >To: mirele@sonic.net
> >From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
> >Subject: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
> >Mime-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> >X-PMFLAGS: 35127424 0 1 P19700.CNM
> >
> >Hi Deana:
> >
> >You haven't answered my e-mail and questions to you.
> >
> >[Quote]
> >
> >To: "Deana M. Holmes" <mirele@sonic.net> Subject: Re: Lisa
> >McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
> >At 06:42 PM 4/9/02 -0700, you wrote:
> >On 09 Apr 2002, you wrote in alt.religion.scientology:
> >
> > > I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
> > > litigation.
> >
> >Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't want to
> >try this on the Internet.
> >
> >What does this have to do with trying the case on the Internet?
> >
> >You report, or somebody reports, things.
> >
> >Has a case ever been tried on the Internet? What do you mean?
> >
> >I'm not sure why you felt possessed to announce
> >this to the world but it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own
> >opinion.)
> >
> >How could it possibly be indiscreet? Scientology knows.
> >
> >If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think it's a bad philosophy.
> >
> >Why do you say I felt possessed when I most clearly wasn't?
> >
> >The question is, why, if Scientology knows, would you feel possessed in
> >this circumstance to withhold the information from the world?
> >
> >But surely you understand that Caroline's security is more important than
> >her testimony in the Lisa McPherson case, even if to it is added the
> >advantage you gain by your almost certainly inadvisable discretion.
> >
> >Do you think I have no right to be involved in Caroline's security?
> >
> >Gerry
> >
> >
> >Deana Holmes
> >mirele@sonic.net
> >
> >[End Quote]
> >
> >I understand that you were on chat after this, again asserting that I was
> >indiscreet. How much more indiscreet could you be?
> >
> >Since this is a subject which is important and since you've been making
> >this ridiculous charge of "indiscretion" about me, do you mind if I post
> >your communication and my response to a.r.s. to clear the air?
> >
> >I do want to thank you for your complete lack of support for Caroline and
> >me, and your efforts to undermine us, because it all helped show us the
> >sort of support she and we would get if she had proceeded to participate in
> >the case.
> >
> >In any event, now that Caroline will not be testifying and Bill Franks
> >will, would you mind answering my response to your "indiscretion" charge?
> >
> >Gerry
> >
> >
> >[My response to Gerry]
> >
> >X-cs: R
> >From: Mirele <mirele@sonic.net>
> >X-RS-ID: <Default>
> >X-RS-Flags: 0,0,1,1,0,0,0
> >X-RS-Header: In-reply-to: <4.3.2.20020413081202.00b81690@pop.telus.net>
> >X-RS-Sigset: 0
> >To: Gerry Armstrong <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
> >Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
> >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:05:57 -0700
> >
> >On 17 Apr 2002 at 6:56, Gerry Armstrong wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Deana:
> >>
> >> You haven't answered my e-mail and questions to you.
> >
> >Gerry, I see no reason to answer your questions. I don't think you're
> >interested in answers.
> >
> >Deana M. Holmes
> >mirele@sonic.net
> >
> >[End]
> >
> >Deana M. Holmes
> >mirele@sonic.net
> >
> >
>
> But, Deana, you're were as wrong about me in April as you are now. I
> was and I am still interested in your answers. Now you can publicly
> answer all the questions I asked of you, which, after your undermining
> in April, you refused to answer. I am very interested in your answers.
>
> You said you see no reason to answer. But that too had to be a lie.
> The reasons were and are right before you. Now here's another reason
> that you say you couldn't see. I am interested. You were wrong about
> me not being interested in your answers. I most certainly am.
>
> © Gerry Armstrong

© GerryArmstrong Certified Liar


 

Thread

 

§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §