February 7, 2005
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
Los Angeles, CA 90010
By E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Re: Scientology v. Armstrong
California Court of Appeal
First Appellate District, Division 4
Case Nos. A107095 and A107100
Dear Mr. Moxon:
On February 4, 2005 I received from the California Court of Appeal an
envelope postmarked February 1 containing your application for an extension
of time filed January 26, 2005 and granted February 1. On February 4 I also
webbed the application and posted it to the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
Page 3 of your application is a proof of service by first class mail
on me on January 25, 2005 executed by you.
On January 31, 2005 I received, webbed and posted your substitution
of counsel, served by mail on me by Angela Parker of Andrew Wilsons
office on January 25.
I have not received the document you declared that youd served
on me on January 25.
I waited all this time to advise you to give you the benefit of the
doubt, and because I couldnt find an e-mail address for you. I am
aware that the Suppressive Person doctrine spikes any Scientologists
professional canons, that you are the doctrines enforcer, and that
I am an SP to be tricked and destroyed. I am making this record for everyones
When you declare in your proof of service that youre not a party
to the within action, thats really not true. Youre a beneficiary
to the underlying contract, just as Mr. Wilson was. You were
released by the contract, and are identified therein
as a releasee, as well as a beneficiary.
The contract that you are seeking to enforce states that
you, in addition to your client CSI, are entitled to liquidated damages
in the amount of $50,000 for each of my religious expressions of my
religious beliefs or my religion. The above-referenced case in the Court
of Appeal in which you filed your application for extension and your proof
of service concerns the same $50,000 liquidated damages penalty for my same
religious expressions of my same religious beliefs and my same religion.
You are not in the same position as Ms. Parker in Mr. Wilsons
office. She is not a beneficiary, not a releasee, and not a party. You and
Mr. Wilson are beneficiaries, releasees and parties.
My experience with Mr. Wilson as attorney of record in the Scientology
cults cases against me is that he was very dishonest and on a number
of occasions cheated on service of case documents on me. See, e.g., http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/ga-e-mail-wilson-2003-07-22.html
As Mr. Wilsons successor counsel of record in your cults
cases against me you are starting off on the same foot.
Because you are a beneficiary, releasee and party, you should not really
be signing proofs of service in these cases. But if you do undertake to
serve papers on me, you have, I contend, an obligation to be extra careful
in your service and extra careful in signing proofs of such service.
Please properly serve on me whatever it is that you declared in your
proof of service executed January 25, 2005 that you had served on me. This
is still important despite my receipt of the document that the Court of
Appeal mailed to me because of the amazing fact that neither your law firms
name nor any address for you appears anywhere in what I received from the
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
#1-45950 Alexander Avenue
Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1L5