|
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
ii
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
|
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
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
|
_________________________
(Signature)
|
|
|