All Posts Tagged With: "a.r.s."
Scientology Threatens Channel 4 TV in UK
Breach 5
From Order of Contempt of 02-20-1998:
(e) On or about October 20, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which violated the terms of the above referenced Judgment. See Wilson declaration. Exhibit I.
From Wilson Declaration of 12-01-1997:
19. On or about October 20, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which discussed CSI and other beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement. A true and correct copy of said documentary work is attached hereto as Exhibit [I].
Exhibit I:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/8a35cac477a95785?dmode=source&hl=en
From: armstr…@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)
Subject: Scientology Threatens Channel 4 TV in UK
Date: 1997/10/20
Message-ID: <344aa9e7.3449839@news.rapidnet.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 281901715
Organization: Rapidnet Technologies Internet
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
As is probably well known 3BM Television has produced for Channel 4 a
documentary biography of Hubbard.
As I understand it, Scientology representatives have been threatening
Channel 4 to prevent the airing of the program. The threat, as it
relates to me and that I know about, is of obtaining an injunction
based on the charge that 3BM induced me to breach the 1986 settlement
“agreement” and the Marin County Califiornia judgment which prohibit
me from speaking about Scientology, Hubbard and so forth.
3BM did not induce me to breach any agreement or judgment. The fact is
I am willing to communicate to anyone about Scientology or Hubbard and
my experiences therewith at any time (you can’t hold down a good grade
zero release) and require no inducement. I was more than willing to be
interviewed by 3BM in order to have the opportunity to make known
Scientology’s obtaining its tax exemption in the US by the submission
of false statements to the IRS.
But even if I had been induced, the “agreement” was obtained
illegally; and even if it had not been obtained illegally it is
illegal on its face. The judgment is equally illegal.
What Scientology is seeking to do is prevent someone from talking
about a dead founder of a “religion.” If it is for any reason legal in
the UK to prevent someone from talking about the dead founder of
Scientology, it is equally legal to prevent someone for any reason
from talking about the dead founder (even if that founder, as opposed
to Hubbard, had been resurrected from the dead) of any religion. Since
it is not legal for any reason to prevent someone from talking about
Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Abraham, Lao-tzu, Xenu or Jesus of
Nazareth, it is not legal to prevent anyone from talking about
Hubbard. If it is conceivably legal to prevent anyone for any reason
from talking about any of these religious founders there is no freedom
of religion. Who but Scientology would want no one to be permitted
legally to talk about these religious founders? Who but Scientology is
seeking to destroy freedom of religion in the UK?
Anyone who has an interest, check out this story. Post Channel 4’s
e-mail and street addresses and other data and contact them. Write
them and tell them for the sake of religious freedom to not be
shuddered into silence by the anti-religion Scientology. Roland can
organize a picket. Someone else can present it to Parliament.
Let the media in the UK know. Drum up interest. And drum the cult out
of the anti-religion business.
Gerry
Re: CoS as Mafia (Was Re: Germany Starts Branding Scientologists)
Breach 2
From Order of Contempt of 02-20-1998:
(b) On or about October 14, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which violated the terms of the above referenced Judgment. See Wilson declaration, Exhibit F.
From Wilson Declaration of 12-01-1997:
16. On or about October 14, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which discussed CSI and other beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement. A true and correct copy of said documentary work is attached hereto as Exhibit [F].
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/f9cc93399624fc3d?dmode=source&hl=en
From: armstr…@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)
Subject: Re: CoS as Mafia (Was Re: Germany Starts Branding Scientologists)
Date: 1997/10/14
Message-ID: <344305c5.21798084@news.rapidnet.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 280463980
References: <348ab820.176246482@snews.zippo.com> <19971008164901.MAA21146@ladder01.news.aol.com> <34f93c84.104123202@snews.zippo.com> <343E6740.292D@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> <343f9093.6449746@snews.zippo.com> <343fdd93.1531410@news.supernews.com> <343ff264.31494757@snews.zippo.com> <34401efb.4391184@news.supernews.com> <3440478f.53314136@snews.zippo.com>
Organization: Rapidnet Technologies Internet
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 04:07:54 GMT, refe…@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:09:47 GMT, g…@tidepool.com (Grady Ward)
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Do you believe that similar steps should be taken by the U.S.
>>>government? Should all businesses owned by Scientologists[tm] be
>>>labeled and prospective employees warned? What makes this different
>>
>>No, I don’t. However I guess we both also agree that we ought to keep lawfully
>>investigating this criminal cult for the mischief that is an organic part of
>>their nature.
>
>Investigating an organization is not equal to investigating
>individuals who happen to belong to the organization. The government
>can investigate individuals who belong to the Mafia if those
>individuals are suspected of criminal activity. The same goes for
>Scientologists[tm]. What the U.S. government cannot do is to label
>pejoratively all individuals who belong to a group, whether that group
>is the Mafia or the CoS.
>
>Diane Richardson
>refe…@bway.net
>
>
Yes, the US can, does and should. “Gang member” is a pejorative. So is
“convicted fellon.” So is a member of the “Cultists Dedicated to the
Destruction of Sanity for Our Leaders’ Own Pernicious Purposes.” The
US uses such labels in its legal briefs and other public statements.
Scientologists, to be Scientologists, must do exactly what they’re
told to do by the cult’s leadership. That fact should be used by the
US in its legal public statements concerning Scientology, or
Scientologists acting for Scientology. The leadership of Scientology
is involved in a mafia-like criminal enterprise: fraud, extortion,
human rights abuses, etc. When the leadership eliminates all such
criminal practices from its operations the US would then be justified
in removing the pejorative label “Scientologist” from its legal public
statements concerning Scientology or Scientologists acting for
Scientology.
Any country is completely justified in calling Scientologists
“Scientologists” and treating them as if they are under the domination
of a cabal of criminals dedicated to the destruction of sanity in that
country’s citizens and institutions for the cabal’s own pernicious
purposes, because that is what Scientologists are. It has almost
nothing to do with the Scientologists’ “beliefs” about the “tech,”
“ARC,” or Xenu, etc., etc. Those things are just part of
Scientologists doing what they’re told to do: believe this, believe
that, don’t believe this or that, read this, say that, do this, don’t
do that, tell this lie, hurt that guy. All for the leaders’ own
pernicious purposes. That’s the danger that people in governments have
come face to face with. Germany has apparently said, “This is not
right.” The US has apparently said, “Wow, what a great idea.”
But the US is wrong. It isn’t a great idea. It isn’t right.
Gerry
Lie Lie Lie, Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie
Breach 3
From Order of Contempt of 02-20-1998:
(c) On or about October 14, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which violated the terms of the above referenced Judgment. See Wilson declaration, Exhibit G.
From Wilson Declaration of 12-01-1997:
17. On or about October 14, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which discussed CSI and other beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement. A true and correct copy of said documentary work is attached hereto as Exhibit [G].
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/b2a8d488b5f781e3?dmode=source&hl=en
From: armstr…@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)
Subject: Lie Lie Lie, Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie
Date: 1997/10/14
Message-ID: <3443040f.21359783@news.rapidnet.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 280364928
Organization: Rapidnet Technologies Internet
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Everyone knows that Hubbard said that he had to lie to people to
control them.
He was only telling a bit of his truth; that is, he was lying. The way
Hubbard really controlled people and his replacement model controls
them is to get them to lie for him. Once a person lies for the cult he
is in its control. If he quits lying for the cult he is no longer in
its control, and no longer a Scientologist.
Having people lie starts with their first success story. If they tell
the truth they cannot continue in Scientology. They lie after every
auditing session and after every level up the grade chart. They lie
about abilities gained and “OT phenomena.” They lie about Scientology
every time they “disseminate.”
As people advance in Scientology they are required to tell different
organizational lies. The top Scientologists, those who have advanced
farthest in this “applied religious philosophy,” are required to
commit perjury in court. They lie about who runs Scientology. They
lie about its history, nature, finances and intentions. They lie about
the GO, OSA, Hubbard and Miscavige.
If anyone refuses to tell a lie he is hauled “off lines” and could
easily become fair game. He knows that if that happens everyone in the
organization will lie about him.
Scientology’s black PR/DA practices are in large part intended for the
controlled cult members. As long as the OSA PR and legal operatives
spread lies about people who are telling the truth about the cult,
these operatives remain controlled. Get all Scientologists to lie
about the people telling the truth and you control all Scientologists.
If the operatives or Scientologists refuse to spread the black PR they
are out of control and must be themselves black PRed lest their
dedication to the truth infect the cult.
It is an organization based on telling lies. All of its lies trace
back to Hubbard and Miscavige, the source and the source’s apprentice.
They are also the chain of lies’ weakest links. Who but fearful
criminals require that the people in their control lie for them? And
who but criminals would have such disdain for people in their care?
Gerry
Re: Who Am I?
Breach 4
From Order of Contempt of 02-20-1998:
(d) Also on or about October 14, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which violated the terms of the above referenced Judgment. See Wilson declaration, Exhibit H.
From Wilson Declaration of 12-01-1997:
18. Also on or about October 14, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which discussed CSI and other beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement. A true and correct copy of said documentary work is attached hereto as Exhibit [H].
Exhibit H:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/5d3fb20b37d6765d?dmode=source&hl=en
From: armstr…@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)
Subject: Re: Who Am I?
Date: 1997/10/14
Message-ID: <34430c54.23477416@news.rapidnet.net>
X-Deja-AN: 280464868
References: <876285648.17075@dejanews.com> <hkhensonEHq3vo.6LB@netcom.com>
Organization: Rapidnet Technologies Internet
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:07:00 GMT, hkhen…@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
wrote:
>the_skep…@rocketmail.com wrote:
>: Re: Who Am I?
>
>: 2. I am under no restraint or coercion concerning the
>: contents of any of my postings, save my own personal judgement and my own
>: sworn oaths.
>
>
>: 4. I will answer any *reasonable* questions regarding my knowledge and
>: experience as a Sea Org staff member and as a Scientologist, providing I
>: can do so without violating my sworn oath of defense of Scientology and
>: Scientologists. I promise to either answer (to the best of my ability),
>: state that I do not know about a particular matter or state that I choose
>: not discuss it.
>
>Certainly this sounds fair.
>
>
Hello Skeptic:
You could be a breath of fresh air, which I for one feel your
organization deliberately denies us.
First of all, I would like to deal with your bias.
1. What is the precise language of your “sworn oath of defense of
Scientology and Scientologists?”
2. When was that oath or those oaths sworn to?
3. What were the relevant circumstances at the time you swore said
oath or oaths?
4. Are there any circumstances you can imagine which would render
right or just your breaking of said oath or oaths?
5. If, for example, you discovered that Scientology, as many of us
here observe, is abusing innocent people, would you continue to defend
it?
6. Wouldn’t your adherence to such an oath make you also a contributor
to the abuse of innocent people?
7. Wouldn’t your adherence to such an oath also render your defense of
your organization irrational? (Given of course that abuse of innocent
people is irrational.) And wouldn’t your posts to this NG in defense
of an organization engaging in such abuse be untrustworthy?
8. It seems to me that an oath to defend innocent people against abuse
and abusers is a far more worthy and rational guideline for one’s
arguments and life. Is it not possible that an abusing organization
requiring of its members an oath of unquestioned defense is abusing
those members?
>: 5. I am willing to carry on a discussion of Scientology matters with
>: anyone in this newsgroup who wishes to conduct a calm, polite, critical
>: debate. I don’t have any problem with people disagreeing with what I have
>: to say [actually, I expect most of you to disagree with *most* of what I
>: have to say]; but, please stick to calm, rational arguments in response -
>: childish name-calling, vicious slurs, loud tirades, wild rantings, and the
>: like will simply be ignored and cause me to cease responding to the
>: offender.
Perhaps you will see that slurs, rants, etc have occurred when real
questions, polite requests for debate and rational arguments have been
ignored by Scientology’s posters to this NG. I have asked a number of
questions and so far received nothing but slurs and irrational
attacks. Something different would be, as I said, fresh air.
>: 6. With regard to principles of Scientology philosophy or technology, I do
>: not “believe” anything. I have had the opportunity to study and apply
>: portions of this subject to my life with uniform success, when applied
>: exactly as found in my materials. A far larger portion of this subject, I
>: have either not studied, or have not had the opportunity to personally
>: test; therefore, I am not qualified to comment upon such areas. I shall
>: endeavour to carefully distinguish these two categories in all my postings
>: to this newsgroup.
>
I do not believe that you do not believe anything regarding these
principles. You are told by Hubbard that Scientology does not depend
on beliefs or faith. You believe that, I believe. You also, at this
time, believe that it is right and ethical that you honor your oath to
defend Scientology and Scientologists. I believe that Hubbard has lied
to, and indeed defrauded, the people who believe in him and his
“philosophy” and “technology” by telling them and leading them to
believe that his subject does not require belief (and therefore that
Scientologists as opposed to, e.g., Christians, are not believing in
their “religion.”)
9. For my understanding and our further discussions, what are the
principles of Scientology philosophy or technology you are refering
to above?
10. Scientology claims that a Scientologist is someone who adheres to
the creed of Scientology. The creed contains a number of beliefs
stated as beliefs; e.g., that man has an inalienable right to speak
freely. If you do not have any beliefs about Scientology, do you not
subscribe to its creed? And if you do not hold your creed’s beliefs
how can you be a Scientologist?
11. As you probably know, Scientology has sought to silence me about
my knowledge of and experience in the organization, your religion. It
has sought my silence with a “settlement contract,” with threats, with
litigation and with court orders. Are not your organization leaders,
by seeking to silence me, in conscious and continual violation of
Scientology’s creed? Are they therefore not sham Scientologists? And
since I do not seek to silence anyone about anything, am I not a true
Scientologist?
I really have no trouble with Scientology’s creed. I have some trouble
with its use by organization leaders to obtain IRS tax exemption when
they violate it knowingly every day of the year.
>
>
>:
>
>: So much for an introduction.
>
>: Regards,
>
>: The_Skep…@rocketmail.com
>
>Thank you very much for introducing yourself. When and if you want
>background material on memes, ask and I will either send it to you in
>email or point you to a web site.
>
>Keith Henson
Yes, thanks for your introduction and your promise of willingness to
respond to calm answers such as mine above.
Gerry Armstrong
Tilman’s Question Re 1982 PI Harassment of G Armstrong
Breach 1
From Order of Contempt:
(a) On or about September 2, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which discussed CSI and other beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement. See Declaration of Andrew H. Wilson in support of Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause re Contempt, Exhibit E.
From Wilson Declaration of 12-01-1997:
15. On or about September 2, 1997, in violation of the Order, Armstrong created and caused to be widely disseminated by means of the Internet a documentary work which discussed CSI and other beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement. A true and correct copy of said documentary work is attached hereto as Exhibit [E].
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/286b54c85421561e?dmode=source
From: armstr…@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)
Subject: Tilman’s Question Re 1982 PI Harassment of G Armstrong
Date: 1997/09/02
Message-ID: <340b84e3.6433090@news.rapidnet.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 269643224
Organization: Rapidnet Technologies Internet
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Tilman asked the following question which I found on Deja News. (I
don’t get all ars posts on my news reader.)
In <3403bcf7.13770…@news.rapidnet.net>, armstr…@ntonline.com
(gerry
armstrong) wrote:
>also hired individuals who followed and surveilled GA, assaulted
>him, struck him bodily with a car, and attempted to involve him in
>a freeway accident.
Can you tell us more about this? I would like to hear the name of
these
people.
The PIs hired by Scientology who harassed my wife Jocelyn and me in
the summer of 1982 were from the Tin Goose Agency in southern
California.
I think the principles in the company were Gene Tinch and Henry
Goosen, who, I also think, they were ex LA law enforcement officers.
Scientology had PIs stake out our home, follow us and generally
terrify us around the clock for about a month period in 1982, until a
LA Superior Court judge let them know they better knock it off.
I was never able to get the names of the individuals who made the
criminal contact with me, although I saw one of them later by chance
on TV.
I picked up surveillance outside my home in Costa Mesa, California
sometime in or around May, 1982. In August I was able to detain a PI
by putting my leg under his car wheel and having Jocelyn call the
local police. I was able to get this person’s name through the police,
although I don’t have it with me at this time. Greg something, I
believe.
Later in August I again spotted surveillance across the highway from
my home; a guy with binoculars in a car. I slipped out of my home with
a camera, without the guy knowing. I approached him, taking his photo
as I moved toward him. He moved toward me and pushed me around with
his hands, striking my chest. I yelled assault, told him to take his
hands off me, waved at passing traffic, and yelled to Jocelyn, not
knowing if she could hear me. The guy then began pushing me around
with his body. I figured he wanted to maneuver me behind nearby
buildings out of sight of passers-by, where he could take care of me.
I can’t help being unlarge, unintimidating and unable to beat on much
bigger bullies. Thankfully Jocelyn rolled up in our car, and the guy
took off.
Some years later I saw the guy on TV acting as corner man for Michael
Nunn. Nunn was a world class boxer, I think middle weight, and may
have held a title or two. He was then managed by the Tin Goose group.
Tinch and Goosen had apparently branched out into training/managing
professional boxers. The corner man, who had assaulted me in 1982,
was identified by the commentator as a brother of Henry Goosen.
On another occasion, also in August, 1982, another one of the PIs was
following Jocelyn and me during our lunch break from our work. We
both were very weary and distraught from the 24 hr a day following and
spying on us. I stopped and got out of our car and approached his
vehicle. He swung toward me and smacked my elbow with the side of his
car.
The same guy later got right in front of us on the highway and slammed
on his brakes. We had an old Datsun 510, in not very good condition.
A first car after the Sea Org; which other SO escapees would
understand. So the incident was pretty terrifying.
We went past the guy; then he came along side and crossed into our
lane as if to force us off the highway. I think we all were very
fortunate that no crash occurred, because this guy was doing things
which were reckless and criminal.
I have photos (not with me) of four of the PIs and a detailed
chronology of these events and the rest of the harassment from that
period.
That period, by the way, is during David Miscavige’s running of
Scientology, and running of its PIs. These events cannot be ascribed
to the criminal Guardian Office.
About the Christmas manifesto
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=34640a6b.50764211% 40news.dowco.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: armstrong@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)
Subject: Trillions to the Cult, or Merely Irrepressible Samizdat?
Date: 1997/11/08
Message-ID: <34640a6b.50764211@news.dowco.com>
Organization: dowco.com internet (ISP)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Further to the discussion regarding my liquidated damages
“debt” to Scierntology.
I wrote this letter, which came to be known as my “Christmas
Manifesto,” and sent it to David Miscavige, various scientology
entities, and 19 non-scientology people. What happened after my
sending it is described following the letter.
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/private-eye-reviews-compilation-apologetic-lies-accurately-43736/
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=30464&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=