http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=
8lmhsuc0791eqv1bcnf76eshj42on8178l%
404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gerry Armstrong: Bald-faced liar
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 10:12:29 +0100
Organization: 1&1 Internet AG
Lines: 404
Message-ID: <8lmhsuc0791eqv1bcnf76eshj42on8178l@4ax.com>
References: <t6gcsu03l6mu56i0df0aj7rbp7t5qf77gb@4ax.com> <
Xns92BDE0285EF7Cmirelesonicnet@208.201.224.154>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9e15383.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.online.de 1036573931 11842 217.225.83.131 (6 Nov 2002 09:12: 11
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@online.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Nov 2002 09:12:11 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
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
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org