§ 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 |
GERRY ARMSTRONG SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MARIN
|
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
|
my computer, documents and other items necessary to complete my opposition that were being shipped separately. This request was granted and the hearing on the motion was set for March 16, 2004.
belongings that states: To: "'gerry@gerryarmstrong.org'" <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Dear Mrs Letkeman, dear Mr. Armstrong, please note, that the shipping company made a mistake and did interchange your
shipment at port of In case you have some questions, do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, [name]
who, like me, is a target of Scientology fair game and the organization’s notorious Suppressive Person doctrine.
the shipping company, its agent and the contact information, as well as the name of the city where our belongings are being sent by “mistake.”
shipment of someone else being sent to a completely different port and country unbelievable, and I am conducting an investigation as possible to get to the bottom of this matter and insure the security of our belongings. |
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 do not believe that a pro per defendant who seeks additional time to assert what he claims are meritorious defenses places any Court in a position any different from the position in which any Court is placed by a non- pro per defendant who seeks additional time to assert what he claims are meritorious defenses. Perhaps the non- pro per litigant is a multicorporational pernicious cult with a billion dollars and an army of lawyers to assert what they claim are meritorious defenses. If there really is a particular position that this Court believes pro per defendants put it in when they seek additional time to assert what they claim are meritorious defenses, when in an unbiased mind there would no difference between the requests of pro per defendants and the requests of non- pro per defendants for additional time to assert what they claim are meritorious defenses, then this Court should examine its position and scratch its bias.
claims in its complaint and its arguments in its summary judgment motion, I am appending hereto as Exhibit A a true and correct copy of the first eighty-six pages of my complaint report to the Justice Department concerning this criminal conspiracy in which this Court, its earlier Injunction, Judgment, contempt orders and arrest warrants against me, and the present lawsuit and the pending summary judgment motion are parts. This section of my report also provides a number of my meritorious defenses that Scientology seeks to dispose of quietly and without sorrow by summary judgment. The final part of my complaint report provides a history of what has occurred since the December 1986 “settlement” underlying Scientology’s complaint, Scientology’s post-“settlement” fair game acts in execution of its Suppressive Person doctrine, and the facts that lead to the conclusion that this court in the person of ex-Judge Gary W. Thomas unlawfully abetted Scientology’s conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate me in my free exercise and enjoyment of my rights and privileges secured to me by the U.S. Constitution and laws, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §242, “deprivation of rights under color of |
5 |
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
|
law.” I ask that this Court read what I have written in my complaint report, to apply it to this civil rights case now before this Court, and to call, as this Court is empowered to do, for an investigation of Judge Thomas’s actions in this case in response to the charges I am making herein and in the complaint report.
United States and Canada that the foregoing is true and correct.
ORDER Defendant’s Request for Extension to file Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment is reset for ___________________________2004
Date:_______________________________
____________________________________ |
||||
6 |
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
|
PROOF OF SERVICE
is 1UP-45950 Alexander Avenue, Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1L5 Canada
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR on the following person on the date set forth below, by Express Mail to the addressee below: Andrew H. Wilson, Esquire
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California, the United States and Canada that the above is true and correct. Executed on February 11, 2004 at Chilliwack, B.C., Canada.
|
||
7 |
§ What's New || Search || Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact § |