Kendrick Moxon, SBN 128240
MOXON & KOBRIN
3055 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90010 213-487-4468
213-487-5385(fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MARIN

Plaintiff, Church of Scientology International, herewith replies to defendant Gerry Armstrong's Opposition to the Church's Motion to Reinstate Sentences.¹ In an attempt to avoid the rulings of judges of this Court, which rulings have been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, Mr. Armstrong seeks for the nth time to reargue the merits of his position regarding whether an injunction should have been issued against him to enforce the 1986 settlement between the parties. We are years past that. Mr. Armstrong admits that he "has been claiming and complaining, essentially that the contract contains unconscionable clauses with unconscionable results from the day in
_________________________
¹ The reply is filed late, because defendant "served" his Opposition after the close of business by email on August 30, 2007. The hard copy has not yet been received.

1

December 1986 when [the settlement agreement] was first given to him to sign." (Opposition, p. 4)  He never prevailed on that argument. Indeed, and as the Court of Appeals recognized, this Court ruled that Armstrong's defenses to the injunction enforcing that agreement are res judicata and that Armstrong is accordingly estopped from again re-litigating this issue he has repeatedly lost. (Ex. A, Appeals Court Mandate, p. 10.) Armstrong did not appeal that ruling, and the issue is (still) final. Equally final are the contempt orders which are the only subject of the instant motion. In addressing Armstrong's ubiquitous arguments that the settlement was unlawful and the injunction requiring compliance with the settlement was unlawful, the Court of Appeals has specifically found that injunction against him was "final." It stated:

Armstrong makes several arguments challenging the validity of the contempt orders.... Armstrong, however, is foreclosed from challenging the merits of the contempt orders in this writ proceeding [footnote noting that he did not appeal these rulings]. The contempt orders are final.

(Ex. A, Court of Appeals Ruling, p. 6.)

Moreover, even if Mr. Armstrong retained the ability to address the merits, the central assertion of his Opposition is simply false. Armstrong claims that this Court found some aspect of the settlement agreement to be unconscionable, thus giving him, he asserts, the ability to reargue the propriety of the settlement agreement. However, this Court made no such finding. Rather, Armstrong has leapt upon the Court's choice of words in finding that a "punishment" greater than $800,000 against Armstrong for violating the injunction would be "unconscionable" as this was the amount Armstrong received in the settlement agreement many years ago.

That statement had nothing to do with the contempt rulings, and is therefore irrelevant to the instant motion. The issue in the instant motion is solely and only the Appeal Court's mandate to this Court requiring that the sentences be re-instated, and plaintiffs further request that a

2

warrant issue for that purpose.   All else is irrelevant.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action.

On September 1, 2007, I served the foregoing document described as:

PLAINTIFF'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REINSTATE SENTENCES FOR CONTEMPT; and MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT'S ARREST

by Federal Express, prepaid, on interested parties in this action as follows:

Gerald Armstrong
#1-45950 Alexander Avenue
Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1L5
Canada

Executed on September 1, 2007 at Los Angeles, California.

I declare in accordance with the laws of the State of California, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

(signed)__________
Kendrick Moxon