§  What's New  ||  Search  ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

     
 
August 15, 1993

Andrew H. Wilson, Esquire
Wilson, Ryan & Campilongo
235 Montgomery Street
Suite 450
San Francisco, CA 94105                                    BY FAX (415)954-0938

Re: CSI v. GERALD ARMSTRONG;
      MICHAEL WALTON;
      TEE-GEE-ACK,
      Marin Superior Court No. 157680

Dear Mr. Wilson:

    The above-referenced lawsuit has become Armstrong IV, and
CSI v. Gerald Armstrong and Tee-Gee-Ack, LA Superior Court No. SC
084642, is Armstrong III. Armstrong II and I you and I and the
courts are all clear about already.

    What you have done in filing this lawsuit which you know to
be bogus is dishonorable. I am preparing a litigation
resolution, but it is a huge, month-consuming task, and I thought
maybe there was still an opportunity for something different from
litigation which could end it right away. As you know this is
what I've tried to do for over 11 years, without, as you also
know, much success. Nevertheless, I will attempt again an appeal
for sense, so am writing you, this lawsuit's executioner, this
letter.

    So far, because nobody has come forward to say what I say I
am having to say it myself. Appealing first to your fiscal
psyche (you wouldn't argue that you're in it for the money,
right?) I have spent some forty-one hours on IV, so let's say,
$2255.00, and $400.00 costs. I'm not sure what Michael Walton's
fees and costs are, but I'm fairly sure that if you decided to
dismiss the complaint and withdraw the lis pendens immediately he
would not object, and would be, I think, fair, in not only fees
and costs but damages. An apology would be helpful, but I doubt
that he'd even ask for one, let alone insist. In any case, now,
as always, is certainly the time, if sense is to be a factor in
this senseless lawsuit.

    Having said that, I should acknowledge that I am not unaware
of the fact that you have a monstrous monetary motivation to have
the attacks on your client's "enemies" go on the rest of your
career. There is some risk in this to your money mountain, of
course, because a malicious prosecution action becomes so obvious
in this litigation's solution to itself. Do not therefore,
transfer any of your assets from this day forward, because there
exists from the time of your first threat in the Armstrong II
depositions, and, for your client, from December 6, 1986, a
claim, regarding which I urge you to transmit a copy of this

Andrew H. Wilson, Esquire
August 15, 1993
Page 2________/

letter to your insurance carrier. I also urge you to divulge to
your carrier all of the facts known by you to underlie not only
the Armstrong IV complaint, but II and III, which you have also
prosecuted maliciously. If you didn't have a clue about what you
were up to before this, please let this be clear notice. While
you're at it, be sure to not withhold all the statements you're
aware of that I've made that I represent to be fact, and which I
say underlie I through IV. If I handled your insurance I would
sure tell you to either dismiss IV, or get out of it if your
client refuses to allow you to; and the same with II and III. If
you're not depending on insurance, but your client's promise to
pay for your defense and damages, I suppose I'd have to admit
that to prolong your career you'd want to generate as many
malicious lawsuits as humanly possible.

    There is, then, the matter of your career, short, long or
prolonged. I may have a different idea from yours about lawyers,
good ones and bad. It's easy to see, in order to stay blind,
that making a mess of money, by any means, makes a lawyer good.
To me, money and goodness are, in all arguable relationships,
unrelated. It is honesty, fairness, discipline, sense and
support for those things in justice's system that make goodness
in lawyers. Some good lawyers are rich, some are poor. Some bad
lawyers are rich, and some again are poor, but all bad lawyers
are dishonest, unfair, undisciplined and dense, and it's they who
give their profession the reputation it shouldn't deserve. As I
said, however, you may have a different view, perhaps something
more Hubbardian, of a career in goodness or badness.

    Please do not kid yourself that because I have not been
destroyed utterly, as Hubbard ordered in his basic litigation
policies, your lawsuits are not terrifying, and do not profoundly
distress me. Only a madman, even in this litigious land, is not
threatened by being named a defendant in any lawsuit to which our
courts give numbers and their awful power. Only Rip Van Winkle
would not recognize your client as the most vicious litigation
machine this land has ever beheld. I am neither mad nor Rip.

    You and I both know that your lawsuits are frivolous; but
please also realize that I am aware that you know that the fact
of their frivolousness does not diminish their danger. In fact,
as we both know, their frivolous nature adds to the threat. The
organization, as you know, because you know of intel ops going
down all the time and sign your name to much of the frivolity,
uses litigation to cover, divert attention from, and render
incredible or plausibly deniable what's really going on: its
secret war of secret meetings, secret orders, secret operatives,
secret files, secret accounts, of ambushes, assaults, arsenals
and abominations. The latest frivolous flurry - Armstrong III
and IV, and their now growing case files - I view as a render-

Andrew H. Wilson, Esquire
August 15, 1993
Page 3________/

incredible operation. Your client's position would be, "Why
would we kill Armstrong; after all we had just sued him and
expected to get a judgment against him for millions of dollars?"
If you consider in your assisting of your client that it is too
rational or controlled to engage in something as unseemly as
assassination, please be on notice that it is neither.

    You know me. You've deposed me. You've seen me in
courtrooms and hallways. You've read my letters, and either read
dozens of my deposition transcripts and volumes of my
declarations, or you've deliberately not read them in order for
rotten reasons to keep yourself ignorant. You promised to ask
your client, David Miscavige, to return the manuscript he had
stolen from my car. You've read my IRS book manuscript. You
know of operations, PIs, intel, lies, assaults, a list of
lawfirms, lawsuits, lawyers and losses as long as your leg. You
know that thousands (the org has been saying six million for
twenty years; but in any case plenty) of persons around the world
are available as perjurers, paralegals or pawns to assist you to
assist your client in its litigation goals.

    The obvious goals of the II, III and IV litigation package
are to silence me and take revenge for my refusal to be silenced.
In furtherance of those goals, in Armstrong IV you seek to take
away my friend Michael Walton's house, cause him and his family
trouble, and in all your lawsuits to cause me trouble, and attack
Tee-Gee-Ack's assets and cause it trouble. The organization has
other goals in the Armstrong litigation that really are intended
to feed its insatiable intelligence appetite, which it
camouflages with the uproariously transparent label of
"legitimate discovery." It should be clear after three years
(using your also uproarious date of February, 1990), three
lawsuits, three shots at contempt, more than three media
mentions, at least three more books on the subject, and a screen
play, that I cannot legally be silenced. Your client's waivers
of any right or standing to enforce the now unmercifully silly
settlement agreement are strewn along the litigation's length.
That aspect of your war with me has long since been lost. The
courts of this country have not acceded to your demands that I be
silenced, and now they never will.

    Without a prayer of achieving its litigation goal of
silence, the organization is left with only naked revenge for my
rejection of its suppression. Our courts, as you might remember,
have often acted to prevent their participation in litigation for
revenge; often enough, I would think, to give pause to anyone but
the completely insane who would contemplate their use for that
base purpose. Revenge itself, a basic Hubbardian policy,
although not an invention for which either his estate or the
organization holds the patent, is what makes the completely

Andrew H. Wilson, Esquire
August 15, 1993
Page 4________/

insane completely insane and certainly insane enough to blind
themselves to how crazy revenge really is. It can never
accomplish its goal, has no real effect, but since its
practitioners consider its effects real (otherwise why indulge in
it) it does have the apparent effect of rendering them crazier
and crazier. That effect is apparent in the 4 Armstrong cases;
the practitioners therein have become crazier and crazier.

    There is a legal point, concerning which revenge admittedly
may have blinded you, that, even if you decide not to dismiss or
exit Armstrong IV, I request that you respond to immediately.
You have claimed that:

"Beginning in February, 1990, and continuing unabated
until the present, Armstrong has breached the Agreement
wilfully and repeatedly, including, inter alia, the
provisions of Paragraph 7(D) of the Agreement which
require Armstrong to pay plaintiff liquidated damages
for each such breach." (Complaint, p. 7, para. 22)

The settlement agreement states at page 8, para. 7(D) that the
organization "would be entitled to liquidated damages in the
amount of $50,000 for each such breach." If my breaching of the
agreement has continued unabated, there could have been but one
breach from February, 1990 forward. Your breaking of that big,
bountiful and, as you say, unabated, breach into artificial parts
is a contrivance to pad your client's damages, which is, funnily
enough, frigging fraud; and I would appreciate your addressing
of that damage padding fraud in your response to this letter.

    I have written you and Ms. Bartilson before on the subject
of mitigation of damages, and I have felt that it is something
you have both not well understood, but I will try again here. I
have a duty to mitigate damages, and I am damaged each time you
tack on another 50 G's for every artificial part into which you
divide my life. You have also noted, as I've noted above, that
my breaching of the agreement has continued unabated since 1990.
It is my duty, therefore, to continue that breach unabated until
the agreement is rescinded and no longer exists to be breached.
This letter thus also serves to advise you and your client that I
am continuing unabated. Please also advise your client to not
waste its victims "donations" sending around its camera-toting
PIs to try to catch me in an instant when I am doing something
other than my unbroken breach. If I am not heard to be breaching
the agreement at any moment, I have not stopped doing so, but am
just between words or breaching in a whisper. Even in my sleep,
though I may not be somniloquizing, I am in every instant
breaching the agreement. Please be assured that it is my
intention to thus do without ceasing whatever I can to mitigate
my damages; and your client's. Even a fool would see that it
would be stupid of me to belay my thus far unabated breach,
because your client will just do something, as it has done, also

Andrew H. Wilson, Esquire
August 15, 1993
Page 5________/

relatively unabatedly, from December, 1986 through present time,
to force, goad, trick or trap me into a second breach. Obviously
the resolution lies in what I've been saying for years: rewrite
the settlement agreement.

    If you haven't sensed that your client is paying you to give
it only bad advice, please do so now. If you're being paid to
not advise your client, be advised that practically anyone (even
I) can give it the same advice for practically nothing. I
actually do have some advice for both you and your client.
Please, look into your hearts and truly question the sense of
what you do. If you have trouble looking into your hearts, give
me a call because I can help.

    And that brings us to the non-litigation resolution of your
client's problems, which is really the purpose of this letter.
If I really desired to foment litigation, as you repeat so
religiously, would I honestly have been so dedicated through all
these years to having your client realize the futility of
litigation as the solution to its problems? The fact that it sees
litigation as a solution is really why its problems persist.
Honest, open communication would work, but your client refuses
to try it, opting instead for the avoidance of communication
by hiding behind layers of lawyers and litigation. Its communications
not screened through its lawyers are dishonest and secret. Its leaders
hide behind their "own" lawyers and layers of lies and should
not be its leaders because its people deserve in their leaders courage,
honesty and openness. So again, I extend to you and to your client the
invitation to meet with me honestly and openly for the purpose of
communication towards the resolution of our conflicts. I will wait
until August 17 before I do anything more with this letter. I'm now
up to 45 1/2 hours and working hard.

    Please look in your hearts and see what you find there.

    With a prayer for peace, I remain, yours sincerely,

Gerald Armstrong
715 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415)456-8450

Hub Law Offices
711 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415)258-0360
Fax 456-5318

 
 

 

 

§  What's New  ||  Search  ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §