From: Gerry Armstrong <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: L. Ron Hubbard never asked psychs for
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 14:40:37 +0200
Organization: Lightlink Internet
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <bdl7qh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-Trace: 5 Jul 2003 08:40:41 -0400, 220.127.116.11
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:03:26 -0800 (AKDT), "blackdog"
>Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>> Now, just to head off one or another op's claim that the "
>> or, as they're also called, the "Affirmations," are forged,
>> in the cultists' criminal contract they acknowledge their
> Your case would be a bit stronger if we could see a scan of the
>actual, signed release form rather than a mock-up of it.
It isn't a form, but here is a scan of the "contract."
> Nevertheless, if the CofS representatives *did* actually sign the
>mutual release as you have presented it, that is, in itself, hardly
>conclusive proof that Hubbard did indeed author the "Admissions"
No one was saying it was "conclusive proof." The preponderance of
evidence, however, including Hubbard's own writing to the Court about
his documents in Scientology v. Armstrong, LA Superior Court case no.
C 420153, was sufficient to "prove" that he was the author. I would
say that the evidence presented was viewed by the judge as "conclusive
proof," and also by Scientology's lawyers as "conclusive proof;
otherwise they would have challenged the document's authenticity.
> This document was allegedly taken by you from the LRH archives and
>presented as a Hubbard-authored document in the court case the CofS
>brought against you in the early 80s.
No, that's a false allegation. The document was given to me by Omar
Garrison, and parts were entered into evidence in the Scientology v.
Armstrong case, after authentication. See:
Appendix at 14:18-21
> The little that I can find on the
>Net states that the document was in Hubbard's handwriting, as opposed
>to the typed "copy" or partial "copy" that you posted
in March of 2000.
Well obviously. In fact I stated that in the post you refer to.
> What should be emphasized here is that you, and your attorney at the
>time, offered this as an *actual* Hubbard-authored document. My opinion
>is that the CofS' main concern at this time was the recovery of these
>stolen documents and that the idea that this and possibly other
>"documents" taken from the Hubbard archives might be
>planted pieces of disinformation was just not foremost in their minds.
No, your opinion is wrong. The cult and the attorneys knew beyond any
doubt that the document was Hubbard's. That is why they didn't
challenge its authenticity. There is no doubt that if they thought
they could have challenged the authenticity of any of the Armstrong
documents they would have done so in a flash.
They would have been, I'm sure they realized, extremely foolish to
challenge the authentic document's authenticity. If they had averred
that it wasn't Hubbard's document, and that he therefore made no
possessory claim to it, the document could have been released to me on
the spot. I could have then made a billion copies of the authentic
document, which everyone would know was in fact from Hubbard. The cult
lawyers did the only thing they reasonably could have done -- accept
the truth that the document is authentic. Which, it is.
The CL Op is what the cult came up with after admitting to the
authenticity of the "Admissions" and after losing the case. This
op fakes an attack on the cult's own lawyers, claiming they forged the
Hubbard letter to the court, and conspired with my attorneys and me
to, among other things, authenticate the Hubbard documents and get him
declared a pathological liar.
> Frederic Rice raised this question in a recent post and I hope to
>have a more detailed response for him in a short while. Needless to
>say, I hold the opinion that the "Affirmations" very well may
>have been authored by Hubbard.
Since you are a Scientologist, you necessarily have a gargantuan bias.
An allegation of bias, of course, allows a very broad inquiry.
But putting bias aside, will you please provide any evidence you have
that the "Admissions" were not authored by Hubbard.
Obviously, since I know they were authored by Hubbard, I know you
cannot have any actual evidence that they were not. I am still very
interested, however, in what you present as evidence for your
I have provided a great deal of evidence for my conclusion in various
statements or sworn testimony. The cult has never challenged the
document's authenticity. Some anonymous Scientologist posters like
yourself, of course, have, but that fact too weighs in favor of
The writing sounds like Hubbard's. The historical facts included in
the writing match Hubbard's history. The personality and
psychopathology evidenced by the writing are consistent with what is
known of Hubbard in his life and other writings.
So it would be very interesting to see what you have to offer to
challenge the writing's authenticity.
> Since you posted to this thread and since you were intimately
>involved with the Hubbard archives in the past I ask these questions:
> (1) Did anyone else have access to the Hubbard archives during your
>tenure as the archivist other than yourself? If so, who?
> (2) Exactly when and where did you first discover the "
> (3) Upon discovering them, did you speak to anyone about them or
>notify anyone of their existence? If so, to whom did you speak or
>correspond and what were the details of the communication(s)?
> (4) Did Robert Vaughn Young know of the existence of the
>"Affirmations" or "Admissions" prior to your taking
> (5) Did you speak with Robert Vaughn Young about the "
>or "Admissions" prior to leaving the archivist post? If so, what
> (6) During your service in the Sea Organization did you have
>knowledge of anyone who had the ability to copy Hubbard's handwriting?
>I'm not speaking of the just his signature here but his actual
>handwriting. If so, who had the ability to do this?
In answer to most of the questions you raise, I suggest you read my
introduction in this post:
And I suggest reading these two posts by other posters. Phineas Fogg:
And now, will you please provide what you have as evidence on which
you base your conclusion regarding the "Admissions'" authenticity.
© Gerry Armstrong