§  What's New  ||  Search  ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

   

 

Case No. A107095

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, a California
nonprofit religious corporation,

Petitioner,

vs.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF MARIN,

Respondent.

---------------------------------------------------

GERALD ARMSTRONG,

Real Party in Interest.

Marin County Superior Court
Case No. 157680/152229,
Consolidated with
Case No. CV 021632

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Consolidated with Case No.
A107100]

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

 

ii, iii

INTRODUCTION

 

2

ARGUMENT

 

6

I. The orders of contempt are unlawful and cannot lawfully be enforced

 


6

A. The first contempt order unlawfully punishes Armstrong for properly reporting a crime and properly responding to a lawful subpoena.

 



6

 

B. All the utterances Armstrong made, for which the second and third contempt orders punish him, are his religious expressions of his religious beliefs about a “religion” in the free exercise of his religion, which expressions and exercise are protected by the U.S. Constitution and cannot logically or lawfully be prohibited or punished by a secular court’s enforcement of a “contract.”

 







16

C. Virtually all of Armstrong’s religious expressions of his religious beliefs for which Scientology wants this Court to order the Marin Court to assess him $50,000 per expression and to jail and fine him were made outside the U.S., and pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the U.S. President and Government must defend Armstrong’s right to express his religious beliefs about the Scientology “religion” outside the U.S. and must oppose Scientology’s use of the California courts to threaten, suppress and destroy that right.

 










29

II. The subject contempts are civil, not criminal, and not offenses against the Court’s dignity

 


38

i

 

 

III. There are significant mitigating circumstances that justify the Marin Court’s discharge of the earlier imposed civil contempts

 


42

IV. Scientology has unclean hands

 

46

V. Law should not countenance an absurdity

 

45
CONCLUSION 47

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

 

 

Church of Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr.917

 


7, 24

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto Ontario Court of Appeal [1997] O.J. No. 1548 C13047 and C13207

 


7

Scientology Kirche Deutschland e.V v. Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, VG Köln 20 K 1882/03

 


17

Allard v. Scientology (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rptr. 797

 

24

Wollersheim v. Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d, 872

 

24

Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628

 

24

ii

 

Statutes

 

 

18 U.S.C. §1512

 

12

18 U.S.C. §4

 

13, 14

18 USC §242

 

14

22 U.S.C. § 6401

 

18, 22, 30-33

18 USC §241

 

26

U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment I

 

26

 

Other Authorities

 

Holy Bible, King James Version, I Corinthians 12: 28,29; Luke 11:46-49

 

21, 22

International Religious Freedom Act of 1998
(22 U.S.C. §§ 6401-6481)

 


29, 30-33

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982, Enacted as Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982

 


7

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1998)

 


8-9

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

 

39

Hubbard Policy Letter: Battle Tactics 02-16-1969

 

23, 24, 25, 26

iii

 

Case No. A107095

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FOUR

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, a California
nonprofit religious corporation,

Petitioner,

vs.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF MARIN,

Respondent.

---------------------------------------------------

GERALD ARMSTRONG,

Real Party in Interest.

Marin County Superior Court
Case No. 157680/152229,
Consolidated with
Case No. CV 021632

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Consolidated with Case No.
A107100]

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

To the Honorable Presiding Justice and the Honorable Associate

Justices of the Court of Appeal of the State of California:

Real party in interest Gerry Armstrong hereby respectfully submits

the following brief in opposition to petitioner Scientology organization’s

petition for a writ of certiorari or, in the alternative, a writ of mandate

(“petition”).

INTRODUCTION

Armstrong has filed a respondent’s brief (“RB, __”) and

respondent’s appendix (RApp.) in the appeal part of this case, and he

incorporates that brief herein in its totality.

He also incorporates herein by reference thereto the record on appeal

in Scientology v. Armstrong, Case No. A075027, in this Court. That is a

prior appeal in the same cases, and Armstrong cites to documents in that

appeal using its number, A075027; e.g., appellants opening brief (“AOB-

A075027,__ ) and clerk’s transcript on appeal (“CT-A075027,__”).

On May 20, 2004, Marin County Superior Court Judge Lynn Duryee

issued the following order:

          On April 9, 2004 the Court sua sponte, transferred all
pending contempt matters in this case to this department for
hearing and consolidated such matters with the trial set in
Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, Case No. CV 021632.
Plaintiff, Church of Scientology International appeared by its
counsel, Andrew H. Wilson. Defendant Gerald Armstrong
personally appeared with and was represented by his counsel,
Ford Greene, Esq.
          After hearing opening statements of the parties, taking
judicial notice of the various pleadings and papers on file
herein, and in the consolidated actions, Church of Scientology
International v. Armstrong
, Case No. 152229 and Church of
Scientology International v. Armstrong
, Case No. 157680, the
Court made the following ruling:

The sentences imposed in the two prior
contempt actions, in Marin Superior Court Case
No. 152229/157680, which is consolidated
herewith, are discharged upon entry of
judgment against Armstrong herein.
On the order of contempt issued July 13, 2001,
Armstrong is sentenced to five days in jail and a
fine of $1,000. The fine is concurrent with the
judgment rendered in this action and the jail
time is deemed served by Armstrong's
appearance in Court.

2

 

Order Re Sentences for Contempt, Scientology’s Exhibits in Support of

Petition for Writ (“Exs.___:___”), Exs. 17:359-360.

The sentences in the two prior contempt actions, both imposed by

former Marin Superior Court Judge Gary W. Thomas, were:

1. June 6, 1997, 2 days in jail and a fine of $1000 for sending a

declaration to U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte in January 1997;

Exs. 8:98-100.

2. February 20, 1998, 26 days in jail and a fine of $2,600 for

making 8 postings to the Internet in Canada and giving 5 interviews to

European media, all during the period between September 2, 1997 and

November 26, 1997. Exs. 9:103-107.

The sentence imposed by Judge Duryee was:

3. April 9, 2004, 5 days in jail and a fine of $1000, for making

131 postings to the Internet in Canada, and giving two talks in Florida, all

during the period between March 1, 1998 and July 11, 2000. RT, Exs.

16:357

On July 13, 2001, Marin Superior Court Judge Vernon Smith, who

had inherited the case after Judge Thomas retired, had found Armstrong in

contempt for those acts but had not imposed a specific punishment. Exs.

13:141-144. Judge Duryee imposed her specific punishment at the April 9,

2004 trial, and then made the fine concurrent with the judgment and

deemed the jail time served by Armstrong's appearance in court at trial.

Exs. 16:357.

The 3 orders of contempt were for acts that Scientology claimed

violated an injunction entered October 17, 1995 by Judge Thomas. Exs.

5:85-93.

The injunction was incorporated into a judgment entered by Judge

Thomas against Armstrong on May 2, 1996. Exs. 6:94-96.

The injunction and judgment enforced Scientology’s “contract

dated December 1986, which underlies and has given rise to several

3

 

Scientology v. Armstrong cases in Marin County, Los Angeles County and

the First and Second District Courts of Appeal. Exs. 1:1-19.

The “contract” and documents and statements relating to it and to the

litigation it has spawned have for years been copied, discussed and written

about by government agencies and government personnel at all

administrative levels, lawyers, judges, theologians, sociologists, media, ex-

Scientologists, Scientologists and wogs1 of every color, continent, faith or

feature. Documents and commentary concerning the Scientology v.

Armstrong saga have been available on the Internet for a decade, and

Armstrong and his wife maintain a web site in Germany that archives and

makes publicly available documents from his legal cases, including this

one, as humanly possible, when they receive such documents. RApp.

166,167.

The “contract” was supposed to settle Armstrong’s lawsuit against

Scientology, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. C 420 153, for years of

fraud, black propaganda2 and other outrageous fair game3. At the time of

the “settlement” in December 1986, Armstrong was subjected to unholy

pressure and trickery, and was touched by holiness itself, all of which

brought him to sign Scientology’s “contract,” which had been sprung on

him without warning. See, e.g., Armstrong’s report to the U.S. Department

of Justice Civil Rights Division, dated February 16, 2004, RApp. 199-211.

On its face, the “contractual” terms that Scientology seeks to enforce

are utterly one-sided, and deprive Armstrong of a multitude of rights and

privileges secured to all U.S. citizens and residents by the U.S. Constitution

and laws; including self-defense, due process, freedom of speech, religious

exercise, association, the right to petition or even communicate with


1 Re: “wogs,” see, e.g., Declaration of Gerald Armstrong, Exs.12:130-132.
2 Re: Black propaganda or black PR, see, e.g., RB, n.1, 1,2.
3 Re: Fair Game, see, e.g., RB, n.2, 2.

4

 

governments, freedom from slavery, and the litigant’s, clergyman-penitent

and doctor-patient privileges.

Immediately following his signing of its “contract,” Scientology

continued its fair gaming of Armstrong as before, publishing and

disseminating black PR on him around the world and filing court

documents containing false sworn statements in an ongoing conspiracy to

destroy his reputation. See, e.g., Sections C and D of “Armstrong’s History

with Scientology,” in his appellant’s opening brief in the earlier appeal.

AOB-A075027,10-17.

Scientology’s black propaganda/fair game campaign parallels and is

part of the conspiracy, among the “beneficiaries” of Scientology’s

“contract,” to destroy Armstrong’s civil rights. These “beneficiaries

include every Scientology corporation, organization or group in the world,

every Scientology-affiliated entity, and all of their directors, officers,

employees, volunteers, representatives, agents, assigns and lawyers. Exs.

1:1-4.

Each action in any court that Scientology has taken to enforce the

“contract’s” terms since it was made, including what Scientology seeks

with this petition, has been in furtherance of this ongoing conspiracy to

strip Armstrong of his fundamental, law-given, and God-given, rights and

privileges in unequivocal violation of U.S. Civil Rights criminal statutes,

and render him the beneficiaries’ defenseless slave and punching bag.

Scientology seeks by its petition to have this Court direct the Marin

Superior Court to vacate its May 20, 2003 order re sentences and reinstate

the 3 original sentences fining and jailing Armstrong, which Judge Duryee

at trial and in her May 20 order has discharged.

Armstrong opposes Scientology’s petition for the reasons stated in

his respondent’s brief and hereinafter.

5

 

ARGUMENT

I. The orders of contempt are unlawful and cannot

lawfully be enforced.

A. The first contempt order unlawfully punishes

Armstrong for properly reporting a crime and properly

responding to a lawful subpoena.

Armstrong incorporates herein the totality of his statement of the

case in his respondent’s brief. RB, 8-31.

While living in San Anselmo, California, Armstrong obtained an

Internet connection in January 1997, and soon thereafter discovered a web

site containing a part of Scientology’s response to a set of questions asked

of it by the IRS in about 1992 in connection with Scientology’s decades-

long effort to obtain tax exemption. Scientology was granted the tax

exemption it sought by the IRS in 1993. Scientology points out its religious

and tax-exempt status in its petition.

Petitioner, Church of Scientology International, is a not-for-
profit religious corporation, recognized by the Internal
Revenue Service as a church exempt from taxation under 26
U.S.C. § 501 (c)(3).

Petition, 3.

The part of Scientology’s response to the IRS that Armstrong

discovered in January 1997 contained a number of pages (RApp. 4-7) of

defamatory black propaganda attacking him, which shocked him deeply

and caused him to decide to immediately leave California and go to

Canada.

Armstrong is a Canadian citizen, had grown up in Canada, and

believed that in Canada he would be free to communicate about this black

PR, which he also considered fraud upon the IRS and the American people,

and be free to communicate to defend himself and others from

Scientology’s ongoing and relentless attacks. Armstrong had been

6

 

Scientology’s “Fair Game” target and victim since 1982. Church of

Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 917.

In Canada, Scientology is known as a criminally convicted

organization, and does not enjoy the same status and benefits as a tax

exempt “religion” that it enjoys in the U.S. and also cannot use the justice

system to harass and ruin its targets and victims as easily as Scientology

can in the U.S. See, R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, Ontario Court of

Appeal [1997] O.J. No. 1548, C13047 and C13207.

It has also now become clear to Armstrong, having lived in Canada

several of the years since he left California in January 1997, that

Scientology’s “contractual” terms, which have been adjudged

“enforceable” in California against him, could not lawfully be enforced in

Canada against him, because they are an impermissible deprivation of

Armstrong’s fundamental freedoms in violation of the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms.

PART I

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize
the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
          Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society.
          Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
including freedom of the press and other media of
communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982, Enacted
as Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982.

7

 

It has also now become clear to Armstrong, having lived and

traveled in Europe for several months since 1997, that Scientology’s

“contract” could not lawfully be enforced in Europe, being an

impermissible deprivation of rights in violation of the European

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

(1998).

The governments signatory hereto, being members of the
Council of Europe, Considering the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the
United Nations on 10th December 1948;
Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the
universal and effective recognition and observance of the
Rights therein declared;
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is the
achievement of greater unity between its members and that
one of the methods by which that aim is to be pursued is the
maintenance and further realization of human rights and
fundamental freedoms;
Reaffirming their profound belief in those fundamental
freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the
world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective
political democracy and on the other by a common
understanding and observance of the human rights upon
which they depend;
Being resolved, as the governments of European countries
which are like-minded and have a common heritage of
political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law, to take
the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the
rights stated in the Universal Declaration,
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights
The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within
their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I
of this Convention.
Section I – Rights and freedoms
[…]
Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community

8

 

with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be
subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public
safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
impart information and ideas without interference by public
authority and regardless of frontiers.
[…]
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
and to freedom of association with others, including the right
to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his
interests.
[…]
Article 17 – Prohibition of abuse of rights
Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying
for any State, group or person any right to engage in any
activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of
the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation
to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

as amended by Protocol No. 11, 1998

Attorney Wilson, writing Scientology’s petition, asserts that

Armstrong left California at two different times and for two different

reasons.

When CSI obtained a permanent injunction against further
breaches, Armstrong fled the jurisdiction and moved to
Canada, from where he openly and contemptuously
disobeyed the court order and publicly defamed Superior
Court Judge Gary Thomas by alleging that he had either been
bribed or extorted by CSI.

Petition, 2.

On June 5, 1997, Judge Thomas issued an order of contempt,
finding that Armstrong "willfully disobeyed the Order." [ ]
Judge Thomas ordered that Armstrong pay a fine of $1,000

9

 

and be confined in the County Jail for two days.[ ] Armstrong
fled the jurisdiction, and on August 6, 1997, Judge Thomas
issued a bench warrant for his arrest.

Petition, 6.

Both of these assertions by Wilson and Scientology are false.

Scientology obtained its injunction on October 17, 1995. Armstrong

moved to Canada in January 1997. He had been in Canada for months

before Judge Thomas signed Scientology’s first order of contempt in June

1997.

While it is true that Armstrong has found that being in Canada or

Europe he cannot be persecuted as easily by Scientology with its injunction

and contempt orders as he can be persecuted in the U.S., what brought him

to leave California in January 1997, was, as he has stated in many

declarations, the discovery of the black propaganda on him in Scientology’s

IRS submission on which its 1993 tax exemption, involving huge sums of

money, is based. Exs.12:123-125.

The black PR in Scientology’s filing with the IRS was meaningful to

Armstrong beyond its false and defamatory content and the purpose for

which that false and defamatory material was used, because Scientology

had filed it with the IRS during a time when Scientology was also seeking

to enforce its “contract” against Armstrong, which on its face prohibited

him from communicating to the IRS about that black PR. Also shocking to

Armstrong was the fact that Scientology had never produced this document

to him in discovery in the case that resulted in Judge Thomas’ onerous

injunction, even though the document was of a type Scientology had been

ordered to produce. Exs. 12:124.

On January 23, 1997, while still in San Anselmo and preparing to

leave for Canada, Armstrong was served with a subpoena for production of

documents by defendant Grady Ward in the case of Religious Technology

10

 

Center v. Ward, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,

Case No. C-96-20207 RMW. RApp. 10,11.

On January 24, 1997, Armstrong received a fax letterfrom Andrew

Wilson, attorney for Scientology in this petition and appeal, threatening

Armstrong in relation to his being a subpoenaed witness. RApp.12.

Armstrong sent a declaration executed January 26, 1997 (RApp. 13-

57) reporting Wilson’s threat to Armstrong to the U.S. District Court Judge

presiding in the Ward case, the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte.

68. On January 23, 1997 I received in the mail from
Grady Ward a subpoena, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit [T], for production of documents in
his case.
69. On January 24 I received from attorney Andrew
H. Wilson a fax letter, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit [U], threatening prosecution in
Armstrong IV if I provide documents to Mr. Ward pursuant to
his subpoena. This letter is frightening to me, and supports
why I am sending this declaration directly to the Court, and
why the “settlement agreement” and the Thomas order are
illegal. Mr. Ward does not have the time to wait for my
testimony until Scientology’s motion for protective order is
heard before he must file this testimony. In my opinion, that
is precisely why Mr. Wilson has sent his threat letter.

RApp. 55

On February 19, 1997 Scientology filed an application for an OSC re

contempt against Armstrong, who was then in Canada, for sending his

declaration to Judge Whyte. Scientology supported its application for an

OSC with a declaration of Andrew Wilson dated February 14, 1997.

(RApp. 58-62) In his declaration, Wilson does not mention Armstrong’s

being served with a subpoena in the Ward case, nor does Wilson mention

his own letter of January 24, 1997 threatening Armstrong in relation to

Ward’s subpoena. Armstrong was never served with Scientology’s OSC

application or the Wilson declaration.

11

 

On February 19, 1997 Judge Thomas signed an OSC re contempt,

which also was never served on Armstrong.

On June 5, 1997 Judge Thomas filed the order of contempt

punishing Armstrong with 2 days in jail and a $1000 fine for sending the

January 26, 1997 declaration to U.S. District Court Judge Whyte. There is

no mention in the order of Ward’s having subpoenaed Armstrong nor any

mention of Wilson’s letter threatening Armstrong in relation with that

subpoena based on Judge Thomas’ injunction. Exs. 8:98-100.

The June 5, 1997 order states:

ARMSTRONG willfully disobeyed the order. On or about
January 26, 1997, ARMSTRONG sent a document entitled
DECLARATION OF GERALD ARMSTRONG to United
States District Judge Ronald M. Whyte. Judge Whyte was at
the time presiding over three cases in which the plaintiff is
RTC. In the Declaration, ARMSTRONG recites his
understanding that he was prohibited from sending such a
Declaration directly to litigants end states that he is instead
sending it directly to Judge Whyte in the hopes of influencing
his decision on a pending matter. This evidences
ARMSTRONG's willful disobedience of the Order and
Judgment.

Exs. 100. Armstrong sent his declaration to Judge Whyte to report a crime,

Wilson’s threat to and interference with a subpoenaed witness in the case

over which Judge Whyte presided.

18 U.S.C. §1512, "Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or an

Informant," states in pertinent part:

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force,
threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts
to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another
person, with intent to -

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any
person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to -

12

 

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record,
document, or other object, from an official
proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object
with intent to impair the object's integrity or
availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person
to appear as a witness, or to produce a record,
document, or other object, in an official
proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to
which such person has been summoned by legal
process; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a
law enforcement officer or judge of the United States
of information relating to the commission or possible
commission of a Federal offense or a violation of
conditions of probation, parole, or release pending
judicial proceedings;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
[...]

(f) For the purposes of this section -

(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about
to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other
object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a
claim of privilege.

It was clear to Armstrong when he received Wilson’s January 24,

1997 letter, and it has become ever clearer to Armstrong, that Wilson was

threatening Armstrong with the intent to delay or prevent Armstrong from

producing the documents Ward had subpoenaed, and that Wilson’s threat

was a crime. Armstrong therefore was acting properly in reporting that

crime to the judge presiding in the case in which Armstrong has been

subpoenaed and threatened.

18 U.S.C. §4, "Misprision of Felony," states:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a
felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals

13

 

and does not as soon as possible make known the same to
some judge or other person in civil or military authority under
the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both.

Thus Armstrong was not only within his lawful rights, which could not

lawfully be stripped from him by “contract” or an injunction of the

California Superior Court, to report Wilson’s threatening Armstrong to the

U.S. District Court, but Armstrong was required by 18 U.S.C. §4 to report

that crime as Armstrong did as soon as possible.

Ward’s subpoena served on Armstrong stated:

YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection
and copying of the following documents or objects [ ]:
All documents and declarations authored by yourself
documenting abuse, fraud, and unlawful acts by the Church of
Scientology Enterprise or any of its investigators, such as
Eugene Martin Ingram.

RApp. 10. Armstrong’s January 26, 1997 declaration in which he reported

Wilson’s threat was a declaration authored by Armstrong documenting

abuse, fraud, and unlawful acts by the Scientology Enterprise and its

investigators, such as Eugene Martin Ingram. Once Armstrong had written

and signed the declaration it thus became a document of the type that Ward

specifically commanded to be produced, and Armstrong was compelled by

the subpoena to produce his declaration to Ward.

Judge Thomas’ punishing Armstrong with a jail sentence and fine

for sending the January 26, 1997 declaration to Judge Whyte properly

reporting a crime and properly responding to Ward’s subpoena itself

constitutes a crime against Armstrong, specifically 18 U.S.C. §242,

"Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law," which states in pertinent part:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or

14

 

protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ...
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both.

As Armstrong showed in his statement of the case in his

respondent’s brief, Wilson and Scientology, seeking the aid of this Court

and other courts to punish Armstrong, have filed declarations and other

papers in which Judge Thomas’ June 5, 1997 order has been quoted, and

relied upon to obtain such aid, without ever mentioning Ward’s subpoena to

Armstrong, Wilson’s threatening Armstrong, Armstrong’s legitimate right

to report Wilson’s crime to Judge Whyte; or that Armstrong’s crime report

by sworn declaration, being a declaration documenting abuse, fraud, and

unlawful acts by Scientology, was what Ward had specifically subpoenaed

Armstrong to produce.

Wilson and Scientology do the same thing, willfully omitting the

same set of vital facts, in their petition to this Court.

7. On February 18, 1997, CSI moved for contempt for
Armstrong's violation of the injunction, based on Armstrong's
voluntarily filing of a declaration in a case pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a party in litigation with a Scientology
church. In that declaration, Armstrong stated that the
injunction issued by Judge Thomas "is an indicator of
Scientology's corruption of the judicial process." On June 5,
1997, Judge Thomas issued an order of contempt, finding that}
Armstrong "willfully disobeyed the Order." [ ] Judge Thomas
ordered that Armstrong pay a fine of $1,000 and be confined
in the County Jail for two days. Armstrong fled the
jurisdiction, and on August 6, 1997, Judge Thomas issued a
bench warrant for his arrest.

Petition, 6,7.

Thus not only is Judge Thomas’ June 5, 1997 contempt order

unlawful, but Wilson’s and Scientology’s use of that unlawful order that

they know to be unlawful, and their omission of the facts known to them

that make the order unlawful, also show that their hands in this matter are

15

 

unclean, and they should be summarily barred from further pursuing the aid

they seek from this Court in their petition. Armstrong’s properly reporting

a crime and properly responding to a subpoena for production of documents

are the “violations” which resulted in the punishment of 2 days in jail and a

fine of $1000, which Judge Duryee discharged and which Scientology and

Wilson want this Court to direct her to “reinstate.”

B. All the utterances Armstrong made, for which the

second and third contempt orders punish him, are his

religious expressions of his religious beliefs about a

“religion” in the free exercise of his religion, which

expressions and exercise are protected by the U.S.

Constitution and cannot logically or lawfully be prohibited or

punished by a secular court’s enforcement of a “contract.”

Armstrong has for several years written extensively about his

religious beliefs and practice and their relationship and defense to

Scientology’s “contract” and its judicial enforcement. His most thorough

analysis of the application of his right to freedom of religion to the

“contract” is contained in his Complaint Report to the U.S. Department of

Justice Civil Rights Division February 16, 2004 (RApp. 168-255), which

Armstrong incorporates herein in its totality. On the religion issue

specifically, see, e.g. RApp. 214-236.

Scientology says it is a “religion,” and has obtained a tax exemption

from the IRS in acceptance of its claim that it is a “religion” organized for

“religious” purposes. For taxation and other strategic reasons, Scientology

claims externally to be equal to e.g., Christianity, and to all other religions.

Scientology claims internally, or to people in its recruitment process, that

Scientology is superior to Christianity and all other religions, that

Scientology works and Christ doesn’t work, or that Scientology works and

nothing else works.

16

 

Armstrong is not challenging Scientology’s religiosity, and accepts,

for all purposes needed herein to oppose Scientology and its petition, that

Scientology is a “religion.” Armstrong acknowledges that for a period of

time he had argued and protested that Scientology could not possibly be a

religion, but over the last number of years he has come to accept that in the

U.S. a criminal conspiracy or a cult with antisocial, anti-democratic,

totalitarian goals, purposes, policies and programs can be a “religion,” and

will be accorded all the protections and privileges conferred on religions

that are not criminal conspiracies and not totalitarian cults with anti-

democratic goals. In Germany, by contrast, Scientology is not officially

considered equal with Christianity, but is kept under official observation by

the German Intelligence Service for its abuse of human rights and its anti-

democratic goals.

On November 11, 2004, the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Cologne

Administrative Court) issued a statement of its judgment affirming the

official surveillance of Scientology by the German Federal Intelligence

Service.

            Scientology may be kept under surveillance by Federal
Office for the Protection of the Constitution.
            The surveillance of the Scientology Kirche
Deutschland e.V. by the Federal Office for the Protection of
the Constitution [Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz] that has
been conducted since 1997 is lawful. This was declared by
the Cologne Administrative Court in its decision pronounced
today, thereby dismissing Scientology's suit the aim of which
had been to obtain a prohibition order on the surveillance.
            The Court stated as reasons for the decision that there
were in fact indications pointing to endeavours by
Scientology directed against the free and democratic
constitutional system. A large number of sources, some of
them not accessible to the public, showed that essential basic
and human rights, e.g. human dignity, the right to free
development of personality and the right to equal treatment,

17

 

were to be limited or overridden. Furthermore, Scientology
was striving for a society without general and equal elections.
These anti-constitutional objectives were even today
justifying the continued surveillance by the intelligence
service. The fact that Scientology views itself as a church or
religious community was no obstacle to the surveillance.

Scientology Kirche Deutschland e.V v. Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz,

VG Köln 20 K 1882/03.

While Armstrong accepts that Scientology is a “religion,” he simply

claims and proclaims that he is equal to Scientology, and because of that

equality and because freedom of religious belief and practice is a universal

human right and fundamental freedom (see, e.g., 22 U.S.C. § 6401) he

cannot lawfully be prohibited from the free exercise of his religion in the

U.S. any more than Scientology could lawfully be prohibited from its own

free exercise of its “religion.” Armstrong’s religious expressions express

the freedom of man, whereas Scientology’s expressions express man’s

slavery, but the religious expressions of both Armstrong and Scientology

are inarguably religious expressions.

Relevant to the evaluation of Scientology’s evidence and intentions

in this appeal and petition is the glaring fact that Scientology, while

identifying itself as a “religious corporation,” has made no mention of

Armstrong being a religious individual, and made no mention of the

utterances, for which Scientology seeks to have him punished by this

secular Court and the secular Marin County Court, being his religious

expressions of his religious beliefs.

Scientology and Wilson do, however, mock Armstrong’s

religiousness.

10. On April 2, 2002, CSI initiated the Related Action for
breach of contract against Armstrong, seeking damages for
the 131 prior violations, plus an additional 70 breaches. CSI
sought compensation under the liquidated damages provision

18

 

of the Agreement. [ ] Armstrong admitted all 201 breaches in
his answer to the complaint, which he signed, saying that he
did so "at the will of God."

Petition, 8,9.

On April 2, 2002, CSI filed this action for breach of contract
against Armstrong, seeking recovery under the liquidated
damages provision of the Agreement for 201 additional
breaches of the Agreement. [ ] In his answer, Armstrong
admitted all 201 breaches saying that he did so "at the will of
God."

AOB, 6.

Scientology and the people serving its purposes have for years also

mocked Armstrong’s religiousness and taunted him for his religious beliefs

in public black propaganda attacks on him.

You're the liar, Gerry. It's a lie that you are a prophet. It's a
lie that God speaks to you. It's a lie that you are doing God's
work.
You are delusional. Or worse, you may be *pretending*
you're delusional.
[...]
The stupidity here is your claiming you do God's work, Garry
Armstrong.
[...]
So sue me. Do you have the guts to sue me? I'm sure you
don't.
Or will you just continue mewling and puking on usenet?
I'm willing to bet the latter. Anyone willing to bet that
Prophet Gerry will actually be brave enough to back up his
words with action?

Excerpt Usenet Black PR Postings, RApp. 141,142.

Here's the post in question. I'm sure Gerry will be glad to
point out the "parallel to OSA methods" in it. Funny, I don't
see anything remotely OSA-like in it, but then I'm not a Profit
of God like Gerry Jihad.

Id, RApp. 144

19

 

Armstrong is both saddened and urged on by his attackers’ mockery of his

religious beliefs. Mockery of religion, of course, is no evidence whatsoever

that the mocked religion is not religious.

Individuals serving Scientology’s purposes also use the mockery and

black PR of Armstrong’s religious beliefs to attack and black PR other

people. The person referred to as “Grabdough” in the following February

2003 Usenet excerpts is Pastor Thomas Gandow, an ordained minister for

27 years in the Evangelisch Kirche, one of Germany’s traditional and

largest churches.

How does the Evangelical Church of Berlin-Brandenberg feel
about you preaching Armstrong's religion in their churches?
Or has Your Prophet[TM] told you that Christians are also
antisemi-literatic too?
You must feel so smug and superior, Grabdough. You fool
the church-supported government into believing you're a
Christian minister while you use their money and their
resources to preach the gospel of Gerry Armstrong, your one
and only Prophet[TM].
[...]
Strange, I always thought this thread was about Gerry
Armstrong.
He IS Your Prophet[TM], isn't he, Grabdough?
[...]
Grabdough's made something of a name for himself attacking
anyone and everyone who criticizes his Prophet[TM], Gerry
Armstrong.

Id, RApp. 146. See also, RApp. 225-226.

Armstrong is a Christian and a prophet to Scientologists. See, e.g.,

RApp. 225,226; RApp. 272; AOB-A075027, 49,50; Declaration of Gerald

Armstrong dated September 15, 1995, CT-A075027, 5894-5924. There is

nothing particularly special or unusual in being a prophet. Theologically, a

prophet is someone who brings God’s Word to people. A minister,

theologically, is someone who brings people’s words to God. There are,

naturally, overlapping functions, so ministers also bring God’s Words, and

20

 

prophets certainly can bring people’s words to God, as, of course, can

everyone else. Armstrong believes that anyone can be called to bring

God’s Words to others, thus anyone can be a prophet. This belief is not

Armstrong’s “invention” but scriptural.

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles,
then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of
tongues.
Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all
workers of miracles?

Holy Bible, King James Version, I. Corinthians, 12: 28,29

Armstrong knows of no other person called to bring God’s Word

specifically to Scientologists, so it is altogether reasonable that God would

call someone to fill that function. This Court has no authority, it goes

without saying, to say that Armstrong is not a prophet, or to say that he

cannot be a prophet to Scientologists. The sincerity of his beliefs and his

practice is in fact shown by his perseverance in keeping expressing his

religious beliefs, despite the onerous monetary penalties and the Fair Game

persecution he has been subjected to for years for those expressions by

Scientology and persons serving its interests, and despite the court orders

punishing him with jail and fines for those religious expressions.

Although Armstrong has done everything in his power to have

Scientology and the California secular courts end their persecution of him

for his expressions of religious beliefs, he also accepts that persecution is

an ironic divine validation of his calling.

And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men
with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch
not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets,
and your fathers killed them.
Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers:
for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

21

 

Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them
prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and
persecute:

Id. Luke 11:46-49

In 1986, Armstrong formed his own Church, and in 2001 named it

the Church of Wogs (“CoW”). See, e.g., CT-A075027, 5900; RApp. 272.

CoW is an Internet based church with members around the world. There

are more than six billion wogs in the wog world, so CoW has an enormous

membership base. It is completely pan-denominational, accepting wogs of

all faiths, and is akin to the brotherhood of man. Cow’s purpose and

function is to defend wogs from Scientology defamation and persecution

and to oppose Scientology in its campaigns to invalidate and persecute

wogs. (RApp. 234-236) It is true that there is a certain humor in CoW’s

acronym and activities, but that is natural because humor is a legitimate,

peaceful, God-given “weapon” for opposing persecution and persecutors.

It is also true that CoW appeared and evolved in significant part in

response to Scientology persecution, but that appearance and evolution are

also natural.

The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin
and existence of the United States. Many of our Nation’s
founders fled religious persecution abroad, cherishing in their
hearts and minds the ideal of religious freedom. They
established in law, as a fundamental right and as a pillar of
our Nation, the right to freedom of religion. From its birth to
this day, the United States has prized this legacy of religious
freedom and honored this heritage by standing for religious
freedom and offering refuge to those suffering religious
persecution.

22 U.S.C. § 6401. The irony should not be lost on this Court that two

centuries after the Nation was founded, Armstrong had to flee abroad to

escape Scientology’s religious persecution in the U.S.

22

 

One of CoW’s tenets is that all of Armstrong’s writings about

Scientology and wogs form the Church’s religious scriptures. Here,

Scientology also marked CoW’s way by declaring all of L. Ron Hubbard’s

writings about Scientology and wogs to be that church’s “religious

scripture.” One “religion” marking the way for a later religion, and one set

of scriptures leading to another set of scriptures, is a natural historical

process as, e.g., Judaism’s paving the way for Christianity shows.

This Court, of course, and thankfully for all of us, has no more

authority to declare that CoW’s scriptures are not its scriptures than the

Court has authority to declare that Scientology’s “scriptures” are not its

“scriptures.” Scientology’s “scriptures” justify CoW’s scriptures not only

by their form, but also by their content, because they create the basis for

and order Scientologists’ persecution of wogs. See, e.g., Scientology

“scripture” Hubbard Policy Letter of February 16, 1969 entitled “Battle

Tactics,” which Armstrong studied inside Scientology. (RApp. 1-3; 241-

243; 259-261) In this “scripture,” which Scientology reissued after

Hubbard’s death, he orders a number of aggressive, immoral and criminal

actions against wogs whom Scientology declares to be “enemies,” also

called “Suppressive Persons.”4


4          Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard ordered, and Scientologists
accept as true, that there is a class of citizens called "Suppressive Persons or
"SPs," who are the most evil people in the world, destructive, criminal, and
deserving no mercy or rights. Hubbard called Scientology’s policy for
the treatment of SPs "Fair Game," and provided examples and types of Fair
Game to be applied to SPs in various policy letters or directives, e.g., 1969
policy letter “Battle Tactics.”
          Armstrong was in Scientology from 1969 to the end of 1981.
Scientology declared Armstrong to be a "Suppressive Person" in early 1982
right after he left the organization. Armstrong has studied Scientology for
thirty-five years and has acquired a great deal of knowledge of and
experience regarding the “Suppressive Person” doctrine and the
philosophy, methodologies and application of, and defense to, Fair Game.

23

 

Actions Scientologists are to take against Scientology’s SP enemies

in compliance with “Battle Tactics” include: expending the maximum of

enemy troops; making the war costly; cutting off enemy communications,

funds, connections; depriving the enemy of political advantages,

connections and power; taking over enemy territory; raiding and harassing;

making the enemy attack wrong targets or persons; using standard wartime

propaganda; bringing public opinion into a frenzy of hate against the

enemy; preserving or increasing the image of Scientology’s troops and

degrading the enemy’s image to beast level; never giving the enemy

breathing space; fighting on the basis of total attrition of the enemy; and

just going all the way in and obliterating him. RApp. 1-3; 241-246; 259-

262.

Hubbard writes that all these belligerent acts are to be done “on a

thought plane,” but clearly this is a lie to give plausible deniability to what


          Armstrong is a founder of the Suppressive Person Defense League
(“SPDL”), dedicated to uniting SPs, defending SPs against beastification,
attack and menace, and bringing SPs to stand up to Scientology.
Suppressive Persons form a religious class and minority persecuted by
Scientology, Scientologists and their agents. Armstrong believes that to
prevent him, a declared SP, from assisting his own people and class against
being beastified, attacked, menaced and obliterated by Scientology is no
different than preventing a Jew from assisting his own people and class
against being beastified, attacked, menaced and obliterated by, e.g., a Nazi
cult. Armstrong and his wife Caroline, whom Scientology also declared a
“Suppressive Person,” maintain an SPDL web site to assist SPs, defend
them against Scientology persecution, and oppose the persecutors. RApp.
171, 172, 177, 179, 186-188, 195, 224, 237-243, 248-254; 258-262, 272.
Re: “Fair Game” and the “Suppressive Person” doctrine, also see, e.g.,
Allard v. Scientology, (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rptr. 797;
Wollersheim v. Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d, 872; Scientology v.
Armstrong
(1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917; Scientology v.
Wollersheim
(1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628.

24

 

he is ordering.5 Depriving people of political advantages, connections and

power, generating wartime propaganda, degrading people’s images to

beasts, making the war costly on them, and achieving people’s total

attrition are not done “on a thought plane,” but in the real world to real

people. Scientology has not attacked SP Armstrong “on a thought plane,”

but in the real world using real world justice systems to harass him, filing

real lawsuits in real courts, threatening him with real threats, assaulting him

with real assaults, and now herein seeking to strip him of his real human

rights, and punish him for fighting back, or even protesting.

Hubbard also writes in “Battle Tactics” that the “enemy” sought

Scientology’s total destruction, had waged barbarian warfare, and fought

for total attrition. But the people that Scientology wars upon in execution

of its “Suppressive Person” doctrine have never done any of those things.

That is a complete invention by Hubbard, either out of paranoia or malice6,

to incite Scientologists to wage a war against the good, loving people he

declared “enemies.”

The people that Scientology wages its war of total attrition on are in

most cases those who might simply stand up and say, Scientology, stop

expending people, stop bankrupting people, stop trying to cut off our

communications, our connections and our funds, stop trying to overwhelm

people, stop grabbing stuff, stop raiding and harassing, stop your lies, stop

the black PR, stop the hate campaigns, stop degrading people, or stop


5 In his June 20, 1984 decision, affirmed on appeal, Judge Breckenridge
stated about Hubbard: “The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually
a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and
achievements.” CT-A075027, 5955-5956.

6 Judge Breckenridge also stated about Hubbard, and Scientology: “The
organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre
combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH.” CT-A075027,
5955.

25

 

obliterating people. Good people who do stand up and oppose

Scientology’s war on good people become Scientology’s targets for total

attrition and obliteration.

For some of those certainly who stood up and have been combating

Scientology in its war on SPs, or good people, for a while, the war has

molded them and become a holy endeavor. Hubbard makes it very clear in

Battle Tactics” that the war that he was commanding his Scientology

troops to wage, finance, and keep going all these years really is war.

Never treat a war like a skirmish. Treat all skirmishes like
wars.

RApp. 2.

The undeniable fact that Scientology organizes its troops to wage

this war of total attrition on good people makes this “church” a criminal

conspiracy. What Scientology has been trying to do to Armstrong using the

California courts in its war is so obviously an organized, Scientology-wide

campaign to strip him of his basic human rights, including his right to

defend himself in the war being waged upon him, that the campaign and the

campaigners are in obvious violation of U.S. Civil Rights criminal statutes.

Concluding that what Scientology is doing with Armstrong is a crime,

specifically a violation of 18 U.S.C. §241, has only encouraged him to

continue to communicate, as it would anyone, prophet or not.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.

There can be no doubt that all of Armstrong’s utterances for which

Scientology wants $50,000 per utterance and wants Armstrong jailed and

fined, whatever else they may be, are his religious expressions of his

26

 

religious beliefs, which, as guaranteed by the First Amendment cannot be

prohibited. Religious expressions of his religious beliefs are Armstrong’s

free exercise of his religion, his religious practice. This opposition too,

although it also serves an obvious secular purpose, is his religious

expression of his religious beliefs.

Scientology’s 23 years of persecution of Armstrong certainly

contributed to the path of religious freedom Armstrong has taken.

Scientology’s war has brought him to a deep appreciation of religious

liberty, to study and understand religion and religious freedom in relation to

Scientology and its war, and to fight as tenaciously as he has these years for

his freedom. He knows Scientology cannot lawfully deprive him of his

religious liberty, and also that what was done by Judge Thomas in the

Marin Court depriving Armstrong of his religious freedom and his defense

of religious freedom, and then ordering Armstrong jailed and fined was also

not lawful. This knowledge too has only encouraged Armstrong to continue

to freely exercise his religion by the expression of his religious beliefs.

As Armstrong has stated hundreds of times in hundreds of ways, it is

inconceivable that any court in the U.S. would enforce a “contract” that

prohibited a person from expressing his religious beliefs about Christianity,

or saying the words “God,” “Christ or “Christianity” or discussing his

religious experiences in the Christian religion. It is even more

inconceivable that a court in the U.S. would award a “church,” pursuant to

such a contract, $50,000 each time the person expressed his religious

beliefs about Christianity. It would be a judicial horror to send a person to

jail and fine him for disobeying a court order that prohibited him from

expressing his religious beliefs about Christianity.

Since silencing someone about Christianity by judicial enforcement

of a “contract” is inconceivable, silencing a person about Scientology,

which puts itself on at least an equal footing religiously with Christianity,

27

 

must be equally inconceivable. Scientology should be told by this Court

and by every court where Scientology takes its “silence contracts” to be

enforced that the enforcement it seeks is inconceivable. Judge Duryee said

essentially that when she ruled that the liquidated damages clause in

Scientology’s “contract” is unconscionable.” Exs. 16:350;18:361.362.

Judge Duryee’s judgment too, of course, has encouraged Armstrong to

continue to express his religious beliefs about the Scientology “religion.”

Scientology chose to call itself a “religion,” and to seek all the

protections and benefits that are conferred on religions. No one forced

Scientology to call itself a “religion,” and Scientology has not claimed that

it was forced to become a “religion.” If Scientology had not called itself a

“religion,” conceivably, setting aside all other reasons why not, Scientology

might be able to lawfully enforce a contract that prohibited a person from

expressing his non-religious beliefs about his non-religious experiences

with that imaginary non-religion Scientology organization. But because

Scientology chose to be a religion it must not and cannot lawfully prohibit

people’s expressions of their beliefs about that religion. Otherwise there is

no freedom of religion; which of course there is as the First Amendment

states and guarantees.

Either Scientology must be prohibited from using the law, as it is

doing with Armstrong, to deprive him of his religious freedom, or the law

that “lawfully” permits Scientology to deprive him of his religious liberty

must be repealed. If Scientology is doing what it is doing to Armstrong

pursuant to law, then that law was made in violation of the First

Amendment that prohibits such a law from being made.

There are no senior interests here, or in relation to any of

Armstrong’s religious expressions, of public safety, order, morality or the

protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Armstrong’s expressions

are not libels, but the truth as he knows it, his sincerely held beliefs about a

28

 

“religion,” about religion, about belief, and about a million other things in

which he has been given beliefs.

C. Virtually all of Armstrong’s religious

expressions of his religious beliefs for which Scientology

wants this Court to order the Marin Court to assess him

$50,000 per expression and to jail and fine him were made

outside the U.S., and pursuant to the International Religious

Freedom Act of 1998, the U.S. President and Government

must defend Armstrong’s right to express his religious beliefs

about the Scientology “religion” outside the U.S. and must

oppose Scientology’s use of the California courts to threaten,

suppress and destroy that right.

Of the 147 separate expressions of Armstrong’s religious beliefs that

are considered by the three contempt orders and Scientology’s effort to

enforce the liquidated damages clause of its “contract,” only 3 were

expressed in the U.S.: Armstrong’s declaration of January 26, 1997, which

he sent to Judge Whyte reporting attorney Wilson’s threat, and produced

pursuant to subpoena; and the two talks he gave about his religious beliefs

in Florida in December 1999. The other 144 expressions under

consideration here were made by Armstrong in Canada or in Europe.

As he has stated many times, and Scientology has repeated many

times in its efforts to judicially enforce its “contract,” Armstrong has made

several thousand Usenet postings of his religious beliefs about Scientology,

all of which he made either in Canada or Europe. Armstrong has also

expressed his religious beliefs many thousands of times in other ways: in

person, by telephone, by e-mail, by picketing Scientology operations, and

by webbing his expressions on his web sites. Almost all of those

expressions of his religion and religious beliefs were also made in Canada

or Europe. The only time Armstrong has been in the U.S. since a brief visit

29

 

in 2001 was to travel to Marin County in April this year to attend his trial,

and naturally he did express his religious beliefs about Scientology during

the trip for the trial. But the vast majority of Armstrong’s expressions of

his religious beliefs about the Scientology “religion” were made outside the

U.S., and he will continue to express his religious beliefs, as he has been

doing, outside the U.S.

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (“IRFA”) has been

incorporated into the U.S. Code as Chapter 73 of Title 22, “International

Religious Freedom.” 22 U.S.C. §§ 6401-6481. §6401 states:

(a) Findings

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The right to freedom of religion undergirds the very origin
and existence of the United States. Many of our Nation’s
founders fled religious persecution abroad, cherishing in their
hearts and minds the ideal of religious freedom. They
established in law, as a fundamental right and as a pillar of
our Nation, the right to freedom of religion. From its birth to
this day, the United States has prized this legacy of religious
freedom and honored this heritage by standing for religious
freedom and offering refuge to those suffering religious
persecution.

(2) Freedom of religious belief and practice is a universal
human right and fundamental freedom articulated in
numerous international instruments, including the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, the Helsinki Accords, the
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance
and Discrim ination Based on Religion or Belief, the United
Nations Charter, and the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

(3) Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
recognizes that "Everyone has the right to freedom of
thought, conscience, and religion. This right includes freedom
to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or
in community with others and in public or private, to manifest

30

 

his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and
observance.". Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights recognizes that "Everyone shall
have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and
religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a
religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either
individually or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship,
observance, practice, and teaching". Governments have the
responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of their
citizens and to pursue justice for all. Religious freedom is a
fundamental right of every individual, regardless of race, sex,
country, creed, or nationality, and should never be arbitrarily
abridged by any government.

(4) The right to freedom of religion is under renewed and, in
some cases, increasing assault in many countries around the
world. More than one-half of the world’s population lives
under regimes that severely restrict or prohibit the freedom of
their citizens to study, believe, observe, and freely practice
the religious faith of their choice. Religious believers and
communities suffer both government-sponsored and
government-tolerated violations of their rights to religious
freedom. Among the many forms of such violations are state-
sponsored slander campaigns, confiscations of property,
surveillance by security police, including by special divisions
of "religious police", severe prohibitions against construction
and repair of places of worship, denial of the right to
assemble and relegation of religious communities to illegal
status through arbitrary registration laws, prohibitions against
the pursuit of education or public office, and prohibitions
against publishing, distributing, or possessing religious
literature and materials.

(5) Even more abhorrent, religious believers in many
countries face such severe and violent forms of religious
persecution as detention, torture, beatings, forced marriage,
rape, imprisonment, enslavement, mass resettlement, and
death merely for the peaceful belief in, change of or practice
of their faith. In many countries, religious believers are forced
to meet secretly, and religious leaders are targeted by national
security forces and hostile mobs.

31

 

(6) Though not confined to a particular region or regime,
religious persecution is often particularly widespread,
systematic, and heinous under totalitarian governments and in
countries with militant, politicized religious majorities.

(7) Congress has recognized and denounced acts of religious
persecution through the adoption of the following resolutions:
(A) House Resolution 515 of the One Hundred Fourth
Congress, expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives with respect to the persecution of Christians
worldwide.

(B) Senate Concurrent Resolution 71 of the One Hundred
Fourth Congress, expressing the sense of the Senate regarding
persecution of Christians worldwide.

(C) House Concurrent Resolution 102 of the One Hundred
Fourth Congress, expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives concerning the emancipation of the Iranian
Baha’i community.

(b) Policy

It shall be the policy of the United States, as follows:

(1) To condemn violations of religious freedom, and to
promote, and to assist other governments in the promotion of,
the fundamental right to freedom of religion.

(2) To seek to channel United States security and
development assistance to governments other than those
found to be engaged in gross violations of the right to
freedom of religion, as set forth in the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.], in the International
Financial Institutions Act of 1977, and in other formulations
of United States human rights policy.

(3) To be vigorous and flexible, reflecting both the
unwavering commitment of the United States to religious
freedom and the desire of the United States for the most
effective and principled response, in light of the range of
violations of religious freedom by a variety of persecuting

32

 

regimes, and the status of the relations of the United States
with different nations.

(4) To work with foreign governments that affirm and protect
religious freedom, in order to develop multilateral documents
and initiatives to combat violations of religious freedom and
promote the right to religious freedom abroad.
(5) Standing for liberty and standing with the persecuted, to
use and implement appropriate tools in the United States
foreign policy apparatus, including diplomatic, political,
commercial, charitable, educational, and cultural channels, to
promote respect for religious freedom by all governments and
peoples.

The Armstrong case identifies Scientology as one of the participants

in the renewed and increasing assault on the right to freedom of religion

around the world. Scientology’s is a new type of assault, using

unconscionable “contracts” concocted by clever lawyers and enforced

judicially by virtue of Scientology’s overwhelming wealth, and

determination to use the courts to achieve the unconscionable. It is,

nevertheless, an assault on the right to religious freedom that fits squarely

under the IRFA, and Armstrong, that assault’s victim, seeks the protection

the Act promises.

That the IRFA is intended to protect Armstrong as a religious

individual from Scientology’s organized efforts to deprive him of his

religious freedom is shown in subsection (a)(3) that specifically

acknowledges that religious freedom is equally for a person “alone or in

community with others.” Armstrong, as already stated, is also the founder

and a member of the Church of Wogs, and his religious freedom in

community with wogs is also protected by the act.

The drafters of the act obviously recognized, as Armstrong has

recognized, that for religious freedom to exist people must be free to

change their religion or beliefs. Because of his absolute right to change

33

 

religion or beliefs, and consequently his expressions of those religious

beliefs, a person cannot be bound by “contract” to a particular form of

religious expression, or prohibited from a particular form of religious

expression, as Scientology is attempting to do with Armstrong. This right

to change religion and beliefs, and consequently and necessarily to change

expression of those beliefs, also must be an exception to the principles of

res judicata and collateral estoppel when orders or judgments limiting or

prohibiting religious expression are involved, as they are in this case.

The IRFA’s drafters also considered public and private

manifestations, or expressions, of people’s religions and religious beliefs,

and declared both private and public necessary for religious freedom. This

inclusive distinction is important to the Armstrong case because virtually

all of his expressions of his religious beliefs for which Scientology is trying

to have him penalized $50,000 per expression, plus jailed and fined, are

public expressions of his religious beliefs. Scientology’s first step is to stop

Armstrong from publicly expressing his beliefs, and punish him for having

done so, of course. Scientology’s second step would be to stop Armstrong

from expressing his religious beliefs privately.

Scientology’s “contract” prohibits both public and private

expressions of Armstrong’s religion and religious beliefs. It permits

Armstrong only to express his religious beliefs to “members of his

immediate family.” The “contract” also permits Armstrong to listen to

another person expressing his or her religion or his beliefs only if that

person is an immediate family member. Obviously such onerous,

unconscionable restrictions on religious expression were what the IRFA

drafters considered when they declared that free religious expression must

be safe and unpunished in private or in public.

The activities the IRFA mentions as manifestations of a person’s

religion or belief, “teaching, practice, worship, and observance” are truly

34

 

what Armstrong does in his religious life. He teaches in everything he

writes and says publicly in expression of his religious beliefs. His words

must be providing some kind of teaching when people are saving $50,000

each utterance he makes. His expressions of his religious belief are an

essential part of his religious practice. Being a believer, he worships as

much as humanly possible every waking hour. And he could not have

carried on in Scientology’s war on him these years without observance.

The IRFA not only identifies and condemns government-sponsored

religious freedom violations, but government-tolerated violations. What

Scientology is trying to do in punishing Armstrong for his expressions of

his religious beliefs is government-tolerated persecution. At this time,

Scientology’s violations of Armstrong’s religious freedom are being

tolerated by Canada, so Armstrong is doing what he can to get Canada to

stop tolerating Scientology’s violations of Armstrong’s and others’

religious freedom.

The U.S., obviously, is put in a difficult position because the

Government for many years, at the highest levels, has tolerated

Scientology’s violations of people’s religious freedoms. U.S. courts have

at times not only tolerated Scientology’s violations of religious freedom but

have abetted them, and thus given them a gloss of legality. The U.S.

Government’s open tolerance of Scientology’s religious persecution of

people, and grant of tax exemption to Scientology in 1993, enabling an

escalation of its war against the people it wanted persecuted, give

Scientology’s violations of people’s religious freedom the appearance

of government sponsorship.

The U.S. Government, from the President on down, is, however

required to address Canada’s tolerance of Scientology’s violations of

religious freedom, and to work toward cessation of that tolerance and of the

violations of religious freedoms that the tolerance tolerates. The only way

35

 

the U.S. Government can do what it is required to do by its own law is to

end its own tolerance of Scientology’s religious freedom violations, and

instead condemn those violations. Scientology v.Armstrong is a great case

to start.

Scientology’s state-tolerated slander campaigns must be as terrible

as state-sponsored slander campaigns. It has special divisions of "religious

police," including some that run its litigation teams that use the law to

violate people’s religious freedom, as is being done here with Armstrong.

Scientology seeks to deny Armstrong the right to assemble by penalizing

him $50,000 in liquidated damages for “picketing.” See, e.g., “Armstrong

Breaches,” attachment to Scientology’s complaint in the trial court, Exs.

14:208, nos. 174-176; 14:209, nos. 185, 187, 189, 193, 195, 196; 14:210,

nos. 198-201, 203. Scientology sought by its complaint $700,000 for these

14 pickets. Certainly Scientology here seeks to prohibit Armstrong from

publishing, distributing, or possessing religious literature and materials,

including religious literature he authored, and to punish him for having

done so.

Imprisoning people for their expressions of their religion or beliefs,

which Scientology is attempting herein, is listed as a severe form of

religious persecution, along with crimes like torture, beatings and

enslavement. Arguably, Scientology’s “contract” is a slave contract

creating with its utter one-sidedness a condition of slavery.

22 U.S.C. §6402, “Definitions,” (13) states:
            (13) Violations of religious freedom
            The term "violations of religious freedom" means
violations of the internationally recognized right to freedom
of religion and religious belief and practice, as set forth in the
international instruments referred to in section 6401 (a)(2) of
this title and as described in section 6401 (a)(3) of this title,
including violations such as--

36

 

            (A) arbitrary prohibitions on, restrictions of, or
punishment for--
            (i) assembling for peaceful religious activities such as
worship, preaching, and prayer, including arbitrary
registration requirements;
            (ii) speaking freely about one’s religious beliefs;
            (iii) changing one’s religious beliefs and affiliation;
            (iv) possession and distribution of religious literature,
including Bibles; or
            (v) raising one’s children in the religious teachings and
practices of one’s choice; or
            (B) any of the following acts if committed on account
of an individual’s religious belief or practice: detention,
interrogation, imposition of an onerous financial penalty,
forced labor, forced mass resettlement, imprisonment, forced
religious conversion, beating, torture, mutilation, rape,
enslavement, murder, and execution.

The violations of Armstrong’s religious freedom as listed in the

IRFA that Scientology is attempting to enforce with its “contract” include

prohibition and punishment for assembling; speaking freely about his

religious beliefs; changing his beliefs and affiliation; and possession and

distribution of religious literature. The acts that Scientology seeks to have

committed on account of Armstrong’s religious practice as listed in the

IRFA include interrogation, imposition of an onerous financial penalty,

imprisonment and enslavement. Scientology’s onerous financial penalty,

$50,000 per expression of Armstrong’s religion or his beliefs, is what Judge

Duryee adjudged unconscionable.

The rest of the IRFA specifies what actions the President, State

Department and other U.S. departments are to take to promote religious

freedom outside the U.S. and specifies the sanctions that are to be applied

to nations that violate religious freedom, or, like Canada in the Scientology

case, tolerate violations of religious freedom.

Realistically, this Court cannot punish a person for expressions of

his religion or his religious beliefs made somewhere else in the world. But

37

 

more importantly, this Court also has a duty to promote religious freedom

outside the U.S. and to prevent violations of religious freedom in alignment

with the IRFA when a case involving religious freedom in a foreign country

is before it, which it is now.

II. The subject contempts are civil, not criminal, and not

offenses against the Court’s dignity

As Armstrong also identifies in his respondent’s brief, three times in

its petition, as written by attorney Wilson, Scientology states the contempt

orders against Armstrong are for “criminal contempt.”

          The Court did not explain how a fine for criminal
contempt payable to the court can be "concurrent" with a civil
judgment for damages payable to a party. Nor did it explain
how an appearance in court is the equivalent of serving a five-
day jail sentence.

Petition, 12

          19. The Superior Court committed clear legal error in
holding that a compensatory damages judgment in the
Related Action for different violations of the contract and
permanent injunction can satisfy orders of criminal contempt
in the Action.

Petition, 13

          In the First and Second Orders of Contempt, Judge
Thomas found Armstrong guilty of contempt and sentenced
him to fines totaling $3,600 and 28 days of confinement. In
the Third Order of Contempt, Judge Duryee sentenced
Armstrong to a $1,000 fine and five days of confinement.
These sentences were criminal contempt sanctions.

Petition, 19

Wilson knew very well that the contempt orders in this case are not

for criminal contempt but for civil contempt. The bench warrants that

followed the contempt orders that Wilson calls “criminal contempt” were

38

 

prepared by him and state very clearly that the matters are “civil.”

Exs.9:101; Exs.11:108.

The reason Wilson and Scientology are calling the civil contempts

“criminal,” aside from the desirability for black PR purposes, is that Wilson

and Scientology need the contempts to be “criminal” to get this Court to

punish Armstrong with the jail sentences and fines that Judge Duryee

discharged. That Wilson and Scientology have to resort to such chicanery,

to telling lawyer lies to get Armstrong punished, not only shows how

baseless their petition is but gives this Court grounds to send them packing.

Black’s Law Dictionary, citing the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt:

Contempts are also classed as civil or criminal. The former
are those quasi contempts which consist in the failure to do
something which the party is ordered by the court to do for
the benefit or advantage of another party to the proceeding
before the court, while criminal contempts are acts done in
disrespect of the court or its process or which obstruct the
administration of justice or tend to bring the court into
disrespect. A civil contempt is not an offense against the
dignity of the court, but against the party in whose behalf the
mandate of the court was issued, and a fine is imposed for his
indemnity. But criminal contempts are offenses or injuries
offered to the court, and a fine or imprisonment is imposed
upon the contemnor for the purpose of punishment.
Fed.R.Crim.Proc.42.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed.

If Scientology acknowledged that the contempts against Armstrong

were civil, it wouldn’t be able to assert, as it does, that the contempt orders’

“purpose was to "vindicate the dignity [and] authority of the court."

Petition, 19. Scientology wouldn’t also support its effort to get Armstrong

jailed and fined with an argument that “enforcement of an order of

contempt in this state is not for the vindication of a private right but is for

39

 

the maintenance of the dignity and authority of the court, and to preserve

the peace and dignity of the people of the State of California.” Petition, 22.

Armstrong’s contempts were acts done not in disrespect of the court

or its process and did not obstruct the administration of justice. In fact, he

has done whatever he possibly could, in very difficult conditions and while

the target of great persecution and injustice, to participate properly in the

court process. It is true that he disobeyed the Marin Court’s injunction on

many occasions, and he continues every day to disobey it. But the terms of

the injunction that he violates are unlawful, and there can be no lawful

requirement that he obey an unlawful order. Judge Duryee has gone a long

way toward validating Armstrong’s position regarding the injunction’s

unlawfulness with her judgment that the liquidated damages provision is

unconscionable, and further by bringing Scientology to acknowledge that

her judgment “immunize[s Armstrong] from any future liability for

breaching a contract he admits having breached well over 200 times, has

been adjudicated to have breached 137 times, and which he vows to

continue to breach indefinitely in the future.” AOB,1.

Armstrong’s actions have not brought the court into disrespect. The

Marin Court’s actions have been discussed around the world, and some of

its actions, being unlawful or in violation of Armstrong human rights,

including his religious freedom, have brought the U.S. and its courts into

disrespect. But that is the proper respectful action of someone attempting

with what negligible resources he has to correct an international injustice.

The U.S.’s respectful response to the disrespect it garners for tolerating

Scientology’s persecution of good people, including violations of their

religious freedom, is to end that toleration.

All of Armstrong’s contempts were committed outside the presence

of the court and were not against the dignity of the court, but against

Scientology. Armstrong failed to not express his religion and his religious

40

 

beliefs, and the court’s injunction that ordered him to not express his

religion and his religious beliefs was for the benefit and advantage of

Scientology. Scientology admits this, out the other side of the mouth that

labeled the contempts “criminal,” in order to give itself standing as a “a

party beneficially interested in the ruling.” Scientology says:

petitioner has standing because “an indirect civil contempt is
an action to protect the rights of a party to the litigation . . .
and not simply a proceeding to preserve the power of the
court.” [ ] CSI was the beneficiary of the injunction, which
was issued to protect its contract rights.. This interest is more
than sufficient to confer standing.

Petition, 17,18.

Scientology cannot have it both ways. Armstrong’s contempts were

civil, not criminal, and the dignity of the court, which Scientology claims to

be upholding by getting this Court to order the Marin Court to jail and fine

Armstrong, after discharging his sentences, was obviously not assaulted or

even bothered by Armstrong’s actions, and in fact credited him for his

appearance in Court. Armstrong and his wife traveled by Greyhound bus

from British Columbia to Marin County, with warrants outstanding for his

arrest, to appear in Court for trial and to take care of the contempt orders

against him.

After Judge Duryee discharged the first two contempt orders and jail

sentences against Armstrong, Wilson still pressed her to jail him.

The only way that the church can get any satisfaction,
or has any chance of having Mr. Armstrong stop this is for the
court to tell him we're serious. We ordered you to stop, we
meant it. Stop. Go to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect
$200. He needs to be put in jail not because he spoke out,
because he thumbed his nose at the court.

Exs. 16:353,

Attorney Ford Greene, who represented Armstrong at trial responded

in Armstrong’s defense.

41

 

I would, in response to Mr. Wilson's comments, say that by
the fact of Mr. Armstrong's appearance here shows that he's
not thumbing his nose at anybody. He's here because he
recognizes the seriousness of the proceeding. He came from
Canada to Marin County knowing that there were the prior
contempt citations. He's not a scofflaw, or some sort of bad
guy. He is a man of principle.

Exs. 16:353 Judge Duryee, who just prior to trial had read a great amount

of Armstrong’s facts and argument in his opposition to Scientology

summary judgment motion (RApp. 1-7; 10-57; 133-153; 166-299) agreed

with Greene.

A few minutes later, Wilson pressed her to impose a sentence on the

Judge Smith’s July 13, 2001 contempt order.

So if I can take a third bite at the apple. Sentence him on that
one. Something.

Exs. 16:356. Judge Duryee ruled:

All right. So on the order of contempt issued July 13th, 2001,
the court sentences you to five days in jail and a fine of
$1,000. The fine is -- the fine is concurrent with the judgment
that's been rendered in this action and the jail time is deemed
served by your appearance in court here today.

Exs. 16:357

It is clear that Judge Duryee did not find that Armstrong was

thumbing his nose at the Court, and did not view Armstrong’s many

contempts as acts against the dignity of the Court. Scientology’s

holding itself out as the upholder of the Court’s dignity in this matter

merits considerable disrespect.

III. There are significant mitigating circumstances that

justify the Marin Court’s discharge of the earlier

imposed civil contempts

42

 

As Scientology says, “where there are mitigating factors,

remission may be appropriate.” Judge Duryee remitted the jail

sentences against Armstrong and made the fines part of the $500,000

punishment she inflicted.

The Court didn’t want the money that might be squeezed out

of Armstrong. She gave the fines to Scientology as part of their

getting their money back. Any punishment, even a dollar, however,

beyond the $500,000, she said, would be unconscionable. So the

fines had to be made concurrent with the judgment.

As to the remission of the jail sentences, there is not only a range of

mitigating factors, there are also exculpatory factors. The biggest factor is

that the judge’s conscience was shocked to the point that she declared what

Scientology was trying to do, beyond the award of its money back,

unconscionable. It is moreover stronger than implication that she found

even more in Scientology’s “contract” than the liquidated damages clause

to be unconscionable. She pointed out its one-sidedness, and she remitted

the jail sentences. Unconscionability mitigated, or more truthfully, justified

the remission of the sentences. And the remission of the sentences

validates the unconscionability judgment because it is the lawful and just

thing to do if a judge whose conscience had been shocked had these

sentencing matters before her.

The first contempt is so unlawful that Mr. Wilson should be

prosecuted for what he did to obtain that order, and for what he has done

thereafter with that order to abuse Armstrong and the legal process on

behalf of his Scientology client. The undeniable unlawfulness of the first

contempt order would be an exculpatory, not a mitigating factor. Judge

Duryee had all the facts necessary to know the first contempt order is

unlawful from Armstrong’s opposition to summary judgment, before her

just before the trial. RApp. 267-270.

43

 

It would be a mitigating factor to any judge with good sense that

Armstrong’s expressions for which Scientology wanted him jailed, and

penalized $50,000 per expression, were his religious expressions of his

religion and his religious beliefs. Judge Duryee had also read about

Armstrong’s determination to keep expressing that religion and those

beliefs. RApp. 271,272. And she had the whole case file going back

twelve years, which is filled with Armstrong’s proclamations of his right to

express his religion and his beliefs as he is called.

Among all the other mitigating factors that Judge Duryee could see,

it was a mitigating factor to her, mentioned by her, that Armstrong showed

up. Sometimes it’s good to show up.

IV. Scientology has unclean hands

The facts necessary to come to an unclean hands adjudication have

all been presented in respondent’s brief or in this opposition. Wilson, on

behalf of Scientology, at a minimum, willfully withheld facts from Judge

Thomas to obtain the contempt order of June 5, 1997 against Armstrong,

who was then living in Canada, and never served. The facts Wilson

withheld concerned his own crime of threatening Armstrong, who had been

subpoenaed in another Scientology case. Armstrong had a right and a duty

to report Wilson’s threat to the Federal Judge as Armstrong did.

Wilson used the June 5, 1997 contempt order to improperly get

Armstrong’s appeal from the Marin Court’s 1996 judgment dismissed in

this Court, and has used it in several subsequent legal proceedings against

Armstrong.

People serving Scientology’s purposes have used the order to black

PR Armstrong around the world. Scientology even used it to try to get

Armstrong in trouble with a host of Russian Government Officials

including the Russian Federal Intelligence Service, and used it to try to get

Armstrong picked up by American agents in Russia.RApp. 221,222.

44

 

Wilson has repeated his falsehoods far too many times, and repeats

them here in his brief and petition, about when Armstrong left California.

Wilson links Armstrong’s departure to Armstrong’s being found in

contempt or a warrant being issued for his arrest, and Wilson cannot but

know that what he has been saying, and says in his petition, is patently

untrue.

Wilson has told many untruths about Armstrong in many legal

documents and in public statements, a set of which in the record he has

identified in his brief and this opposition.

Wilson is a beneficiary of Scientology’s unconscionable “contract.

V. Law should not countenance an absurdity

The numbers and the dollars involved in this matter are intergalactic.

$50,000 per expression of his religion or beliefs makes Armstrong easily

the most valuable being on the planet. He has made easily hundreds of

thousands of religious expressions of his religious beliefs about the

Scientology “religion,” generating easily billions of dollars.

Attorney Wilson stated at the April 9, 2004 trial that Armstrong had

breached the “contract” zillions of times and told the Court that Armstrong

was breaching it zillions of times. Exs.16:319. The amount Armstrong

would have to pay Scientology, therefore, if its unconscionable liquidated

damages clause is not limited as Judge Duryee has done, would be fifty

thousand zillions dollars.

Not only would fifty thousand zillions dollars be Armstrong’s

liability, however, it must also be viewed as Armstrong’s value, or the

value of zillions of his religious expressions. But Judge Thomas ruled that

this valuation for Armstrong’s religious expressions was per recipient of

each expression. See, order of summary judgment dated October 17, 1995,

Exs. 83, also quoted in Scientology’s opening brief. AOB, 4. The 18 letters

for which Judge Thomas agrees that Scientology is due $900,000 in

45

 

liquidated damages, are 18 recipients of the single letter. The letter itself is

part of the record in Armstrong’s appeal from Judge Thomas’ judgment.

CT-A075027, 525-534.

By creating copies of his expressions of his religion or beliefs,

Armstrong, with very little effort, could generate expressions worth

quadrillions of dollars. There is really no limit to the value of the

expressions Armstrong can generate.

This arithmetic also makes it glaringly obvious that Scientology

criminally cheated Armstrong monetarily in its 1986 “settlement.”

Scientology makes a big deal of paying Armstrong $800,000, and it might

sound like a lot of money, until Armstrong’s real value is accurately

considered.

Armstrong can generate $800,000 in religious expressions in a few

seconds work.

As Scientology says, Judge Duryee has immunized Armstrong from

any future liability for breaching a contract he admits having breached well

over 200 times, has been adjudicated to have breached 137 times, and

which he vows to continue to breach indefinitely in the future. AOB, 1

Now is the time for Scientology to honestly negotiate a new

“contract” with Armstrong. There was absolutely no negotiation the first

time around, and all of this abusive and unconscionable litigation resulted.

Scientology should propose to Armstrong a reasonable amount to

compensate him, for an honest calculation of his potential expressions of

his religion times the recipients he could reach. Armstrong has proposed

sextillions of dollars in his summary judgment opposition as a good starting

figure. RApp. 264-266.

The math also must be done for the jail sentences and fines. The

first sentence for the first contempt was two days in jail and a $1000 fine

for one expression. The second sentence was 26 days in jail and a fine of

46

 

$2,600 for 13 expressions of Armstrong’s religion or beliefs, or 2 days in

jail for each expression and a fine of $200 for each expression. The third

sentence for 131 expressions of Armstrong’s religious beliefs was five days

in jail and $1000 fine, or 55 minutes jail time and $7.63 fine per expression.

Anyone with any math sense at all can recognize that to keep those

figures going and get out from underneath any threat of jail time or fines

Armstrong must generate ever more religious expressions of his religion

and his religious beliefs.

CONCLUSION

Armstrong is an ordinary, common person. He has been persecuted

by Scientology for years in a most extraordinary, uncommon way.

His legal situation cries out for justice. Enormous human rights

issues and a global public controversy are involved.

Scientology’s and attorney Wilson’s hands are unclean in the

transaction before this Court, and should not be given the “relief” they urge

the Court by writ petition to give them.

Armstrong has stated in his respondent’s brief that he believes

Scientology must submit to an evidentiary hearing on the circumstances

when the “contract” was made, and Armstrong requests such a full hearing,

indeed a trial.

He therefore asks this Court to deny Scientology’s petition and to

send this case back to the Marin Court to conduct a hearing.

Alternatively, this Court may act as it is allowed by law to end this

litigation abuse by Scientology once and for all.

Dated: December 7, 2004

 


 


Gerry Armstrong
#1-45950 Alexander Avenue
Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1L5
Canada
604-703-1373
gerry@gerryarmstrong.org

 

 

47

 

CERTIFICATE OF LENGTH

Pursuant to Rule 14(c)(1) of the California Rules of Court,

respondent Gerry Armstrong certifies that the number of words in this brief,

according to the word count of the computer program used to prepare the

brief, is 13,345 words.

 

 


 


Gerry Armstrong

 

48

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am employed in the Province of British Columbia, Canada. I am over the age of eighteen years and am not a party to the above-entitled action. My business address is #1-45950 Alexander Avenue, Chilliwack, B.C. V2P 1L5.

On December 7, 2004 I served the following documents:

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

on the following persons on the date set forth below, by placing true copies
thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the service list, as
follows:

 

XX By Mail

I caused such envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the
Canadian mail at Chilliwack, B.C., Canada.

 

Clerk of the Superior Court
Marin County Superior Court
3501 Civic Center Drive
San Rafael, CA 94913
U.S.A.
(Hon. Lynn Duryee)

California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

(5 copies)

 

XX By Express Mail

Andrew H. Wilson, Esq.
Wilson Campilongo LLP
475 Gate 5 Road, Suite 212
Sausalito, CA 94965-1475
U.S.A.

             I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Canada, the United
States, and the State of California that the above is true and correct.
Executed on December 7, 2004 at Chilliwack, B.C., Canada

 

Caroline Letkeman

Caroline Letkeman

_________________________
(Signature)

 

 

   

§  What's New  ||  Search  ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §