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

   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Gerald Armstrong
[former address]

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

 

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a California nonprofit religious corporation,

    Plaintiff,

vs.

GERALD ARMSTRONG,

    Defendant.





)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 152229


REQUEST FOR TIME TO RESPOND
TO SCIENTOLOGY'S LATEST
FILING SEEKING CONTEMPT
ORDER; DECLARATION OF
GERALD ARMSTRONG






Date: December 27, 2000
Time: 0930
Department: F

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

         Defendant Gerald Armstrong asks this Court for time in which to respond to

whatever the Scientology organization will file or has filed prior to the hearing presently set

on Scientology's pending attempt to have him found in contempt of court. He requests that

he be given two weeks from service on him of Scientology's papers to file his response.

Scientology can have as long as it wants to file any reply they have to his response. His

request is based on the declaration of Gerald Armstrong which follows, the exhibits

thereto, and the complete record in this case.

Dated: December 23, 2000

Respectfully submitted,

 

Gerry Armstrong

 

 

 
1
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG

    I, Gerald Armstrong declare:

    1. I am the defendant in this case.

    2. On December 21 I read an article on this case in the Marin Independent Journal. The article, a

true and correct copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit [A], contains the the following

statement:

But Judge Vernon Smith yesterday rejected the church's motion for a contempt citation,

saying the judge who issued the original order, Gary Thomas, is long retired, and the

church had failed to explain why Smith himself should issue a contempt order.

"The court has overwhelming evidence to hold him in contempt," protested Andrew

Wilson, the church's Sausalito-based attorney.

"I'm not convinced of that," Smith said. But he continued the matter until next

Wednesday,

giving church attorneys a chance to file more briefs in support of their argument.

    3. On December 21 I placed two calls to the office of Andrew H. Wilson, attorney for Scientology

and left two voice mail messages for him requesting his agreement to a continuance of the

contempt hearing to give me time to respond to whatever he and Scientology would file prior to

the hearing.

    4. On December 23 I reached Mr. Wilson and requested his agreement to giving me enough time to

respond. I suggested that I have two weeks to respond. Mr. Wilson refused to give me any time.

When I reacted to that silliness, and rejected various silly excuses he offered, the only thing Mr.

Wilson said he would do was "think about it," and then abruptly hung up.

    5. I then e-mailed Mr. Wilson a letter concerning our conversation and renewing my request that he

agree to give me time to file a response to whatever he would file. A true and correct copy of this

letter is appended hereto as Exhibit [B] .

    6. Mr. Wilson then e-mailed me a response, a true and correct copy of which is appended hereto

as Exhibit [C], in which he stated:

 
2

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

"I intend to appear before Judge Smith at 9:30 on December 27, and inform him that I

have spoken with you, and that we are agreeable to your filing whatever response you

wish in this matter, that we had suggested one week and that you wanted two weeks"

    7. I then e-mailed Mr. Wilson a letter in response, a true and correct copy of which is appended

hereto as Exhibit [D].

    8. As is clear in our exchanges, and in what Mr. Wilson has filed and said about me in this

litigation, and by comments he has made outside of this litigation, I do not trust him. I believe he

will lie to this Court about the matter of my request for sufficient time to respond to whatever he

files. I have found him dishonest about service of documents throughout this litigation, and

dishonest in many sworn statements. He actively participates in the Scientology organization's

practice of defaming its opponents, called by Scientology "black PR."

    9. The request to be able to respond to whatever Scientology now files is nothing frivolous but

based in the certainty that the injunction Scientology is trying to enforce by way of jailing and

fining me is unlawful, specifically, obstructive of justice, against public policy, unnecessarily

and impermissibly violative of my rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of

assembly, and due process, and freedom from slavery, and impossible to enforce, as

demonstrated by everything which has transpired since the injunction was crafted by $cientology

and signed by former Superior Court Judge Gary W. Thomas in October, 1995.

    10. Scientology will not be prejudiced by the grant of two weeks for me to be able to respond.

As I say in my letter (Ex. [B]) the alleged violations go all the way back to February 20,

1998. Scientology did nothing about all these acts until November, 2000.

    11. Scientology, moreover, for some as yet unexplained reason, ended their violations list on

July 10, 2000 (See, Scientology's Ex Parte Application for OSC Re Contempt, 2:2). Yet, I

can attest that during the period from July 10, 2000 until the date Scientology filed its

application some four months later, my violations of Scientology's unlawful injunction

continued unabated. If Scientology can wait four month, indeed wait 33 months, two weeks

 
3
   

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

for me to be able to respond their latest effort to punish me for failure to obey their unlawful

injunction is in no way prejudicial to the organization.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California, the United

States of America, British Columbia and Canada, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed

this 23rd day of December, 2000 at Chilliwack, B.C.

 

 

 

_____________________________

Gerry Armstrong 

 
4
   

    

Exhibit [A]
Marin Independent Journal Article

Exhibit [B]
Armstrong E-mail to Wilson 12-22-2000

Exhibit [C]
Wilson E-mail to Armstrong 12-22-2000

Exhibit [D]
Armstrong E-mail to Wilson 12-23-2000

   

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