http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1m4ctu8ou84569ile390a711scju8mogkn%
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: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:59:25 +0100
Organization: 1&1 Internet AG
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <1m4ctu8ou84569ile390a711scju8mogkn@4ax.com>
References: <kal6tus069gjiqdki7q2i0t14f78ltckhp@4ax.com> <
dqcbtucvdlivet3imcglqbolasm2u401sd@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9e1522a.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 1037440746 26414 217.225.82.42 (16 Nov 2002 09:59:
06
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@online.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Nov 2002 09:59:06 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 04:10:40 +0100, Boudewijn van Ingen
<bogie@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Hi Gerry,
>
>Is the full text of that "mutual release" (which apparently
wasn't
>very "mutual" at all) available on the web too?
>
>Looks to me like there are certainly some things in the short snippet
>from the "mutual release" that you quote that are in direct
violation
>of not only the US Constitution, but International Law and possibly
>even Universal Human Rights.
>
>The rest of the world is certainly not surprised to find that the US
>considers itself to be "above" International Law or
Universal Human
>Rights.
>
>And individual States, courts and judges within the US have a long
>tradition of behaving unconstitutionally. So no surprise there too.
>
>But still, I was a bit surprised that you didn't include the
>classification "unconstitutional" in the list of
qualifications
for
>said "release" (which wasn't any "release"at all,
come
to think of
>it...).
>
>[snipped your long text, I gather it is on the web]
The "mutual release" is here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-1986.html
The Answer is here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/armstrong-answer-
cv021632.html
And I did include "unconstitutional" in my classification
of the
"mutual release" and the Thomas Injunction in my Answer.
E.g. [Quote]
Armstrong signed the mutual release containing said illegal,
unconstitutional, greatly stupid, impossible to perform, anti-public
policy, anti-American, anti-religion, diabolical and insane "
covenant"
because of threats from CSI, Scientology, Miscavige and the
beneficiaries to the finances, health, businesses, families,
reputations, persons and lives of himself, his lawyers, his friends,
and the non-Scientologist parties involved in several separate cases
then pending against CSI, Scientology, Miscavige or the beneficiaries;
because of fraudulent representations by CSI, Scientology, Miscavige,
the beneficiaries, and Armstrong's lawyer; because of the compromise
of Armstrong's lawyer by CSI, Scientology, Miscavige and the
beneficiaries; and because Armstrong was guided by God to sign CSI's,
Scientology's, Miscavige's and the beneficiaries' illegal,
unconstitutional, greatly stupid, impossible to perform, anti-public
policy, anti-American, anti-religion, diabolical and insane mutual
release so that it could be shown to all the world to be exactly what
it is, to wit, illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid, impossible
to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American, anti-religion,
diabolical, insane and clearly unenforceable.
[End Quote]
By my rough count, in the Answer in describing the terms of the
"mutual release" or the injunction that Scientology is
attempting in
its latest Complaint to punish me for violating, the word
"unconstitutional" appears 62 times.
Scientology's Complaint against Bob Minton, the Lisa McPherson Trust
and me, that my Answer answers is here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/complaint-cv021632.html
Bob's and the LMT's Answer is here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/minton-answer-cv021632.html
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org