http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ipc7tusk701sp2pt21gugeh55rsh9bvrqe%
404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Answer in $cientology v. Armstrong,
Marin
SC CV 021632
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:45:12 +0100
Organization: 1&1 Internet AG
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <ipc7tusk701sp2pt21gugeh55rsh9bvrqe@4ax.com>
References: <kal6tus069gjiqdki7q2i0t14f78ltckhp@4ax.com>
<BDLA9.27024$1O2.3780@sccrnsc04>
<sKLA9.26982$QZ.6508@sccrnsc02> <wMMA9.57$Xo.205@rwcrnsc53>
<md77tugdu6jlmph4o2uhnmrd0du9b3ks5a@4ax.com>
<YONA9.11993$Rp.5409@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9e152d0.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 1037285094 737 217.225.82.208 (14 Nov 2002 14:44:
54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@online.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Nov 2002 14:44:54 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:46:32 GMT, Keith <nospam@nosssppam.no.sd>
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:20:31 +0100, Gerry Armstrong <gerry
@gerryarmstrong.org>
>wrote:
>
>>I have presented my arguments. Proof will come when the cult
either
>>cancels the "contract,"
>
> That will never happen.
Well, that's the challenge isn't it? Scientology wants the right to
fair game people by contract. And I fight for Scientology's victims.
Scientology wants to use the law to harass. And I say that's illegal.
It may never happen that Scientology wakes up and gets decent.
It may never happen that there is one decent Scientologist in the
world who stands up and opposes this most egregious of wilful
violations of their "creed."
But even if these things never happen, I am grateful that I answered
the call, that I am still standing, and that I am still opposing this
evil.
What your cult is doing with me and the way it is using the U.S. Court
system to suppress and enslave people in violation of your "
creed"
is
observed by the whole world.
Every country can know that this slavery is what Scientology intends
for its citizens.
Every nation can know that your "creed" is a sham, your
pretense
of
humanitarianism is a fraud, your aims are utter lies.
Every person on earth can know, just by observing what your cult is
doing with me, that none of you can be trusted, that Scientology is
evil, that its goal is slavery, and that every step taken by every
nation to oppose and curtail its activities is justified.
>
>>or it is ruled unlawful in court,
>
>That will never happen.
Again, that remains to be seen. The U.S. legal system is just as much
under observation for what it is doing with my case as is Scientology.
Since the U.S. Government is promoting Scientology, it is also
promoting Scientology's suppression and slavery by contract as
demonstrated in my case. The U.S. has so far felt no criticism from
other countries for what the cult is doing to me, but what if people
in these other countries wake up?
If in the U.S. a person can be jailed for even mentioning a
"religion," how can the U.S. claim the high ground in
criticising
other countries' religious persecution of their citizens?
No, Scientology's religious persecution is potentially very
embararassing to the U.S. And it should be. The U.S.'s support for
Scientology when, as my case demonstrates, Scientology seeks to
silence and enslave people *on religious grounds*, is shameful.
The Marin Superior Court's support for Scientology's "
religious"
persecution, and the Court's "prostrat[ing] the court
system into making an order which is not fair or in the
public interest," is also shameful.
So I can't submit to your very stupid postulate that the Court will
never rule the "contract's" unlawful conditions are unlawful.
>
>> or in some legislature,
>
>Congress will pass the Armstrong Act preventing gag orders in 2040,
NOT!
Again, I am not ready to submit to your stupid postulate, nor to your
cult's suppression.
>
>> or in the court of public opinion.
>
> The court of public opinion doesn't make legal rulings.
Oh, yes, they do.
>
>
>> I have already had legal opinions from excellent authorities that
such
a "contract" is
>>not legally enforceable in Germany.
>
> You entered into the agreement years ago in California, so it still
applies
>to *you*.
Of course it applies to *me.* Don't be stupid. It's *all* about me.
>
> This is the last rant of yours I will answer, it is like talking to a
brick
>wall.
Good. Touchdown.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org