On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:59:04 -0800, Gerry Armstrong
<gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:

>Marin Superior Court has a tentative ruling system where the judge who
>will preside over a hearing will issue a tentative ruling the
>afternoon of the day before the scheduled hearing. A party or counsel
>calls in to the Court and gets prompted to the tentative ruling line,
>where the case number is punched in and an audio recording plays of
>the tentative ruling read by a clerk.
>
>Any party wishing to contest the tentative then must call and advise
>the Court and must advise the opposing party or counsel that he will
>be at the hearing to contest it. If no one contests the tentative it
>becomes the ruling.
>
>This afternoon the audio message stated that the tentative ruling
>would be faxed to counsel. And right after I got this message, I got
>an e-mail from Andy Wilson saying that he would be at the hearing at
>9:00 a.m. tomorrow to contest the tentative ruling.
>
>I then got the tentative faxed to a copy shop:
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/ord-mtn-sj-2004-03-22-txt.html
>
>I will attend the hearing, God willing, by conference call.
>
>[Quote]
>
>03/22/2004 16:10 14154997897 MARIN SUPERIOR COURT
>PAGE01/01
>
>MARIN SUPERIOR COURT
>
>DATE: 03/23/04 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT NO:L CASE N0: CV021632
>
>PRESENT: HON. LYNN DURYEE
>
>REPORTER: DEBORAH BARTUNEK CLERK: JANET MINKIEWICZ
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>PLAINTIFF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
>INTERNATIONAL
>
>vs.
>
>DEFENDANT: GERALD ARMSTRONG, ET
>AL
> [Handwritten:]
>S. RAJKOWSKI 2897110
>W. DRESCHER 81870999[xx]
>G. ARMSTRONG 604795523[x]
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PLTF) CHURCH
>OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
>
>RULING
>
>PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT
>MET ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING IT IS ENTITLED TO PREVAIL IN THIS ACTION.
>PLAINTIFF HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT EACH OF THE INCIDENTS UPON WHICH
>THIS ACTION IS BASED ARE VIOLATIONS OF PARAGRAPH 7(D) OF THE
>SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. EVEN IF THE COURT WERE TO ACCEPT THAT THE 131
>POSTINGS UPON WHICH THE CONTEMPT FINDING WAS BASED CONSTITUTE
>VIOLATIONS OF THAT PROVISION BASED UPON DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO
>DISPUTE FACT 8, PLAINTIFF HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN AS TO THE REMAINING
>70 INCIDENTS. FACT 11, THE ONLY FACT WHICH ADDRESSES ALL 201
>VIOLATIONS, IS SUPPORTED BY PARAGRAPH 14 OF DEFENDANT'S ANSWER.
>DEFENDANT DOES NOT ADMIT IN THAT PARAGRAPH THAT HE COMMITTED THE 201
>ACTS OR THAT SUCH ACTS CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF PARAGRAPH 7(D).

There's an error in the tentative ruling here. Scientology's Fact 11
in its Separate Statement cites to *Page* 14, lines 8-28 of my Answer,
not *Paragraph* 14.

Scientology's Separate Statement:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/pltf-sep-stmt-mtn-sj-2003-11-17.html

My Answer:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/armstrong-answer-cv021632.html

The Answer at 14:8-28 states:

[Quote]

Armstrong admits that since the February 1998 contempt order he made
more than 200 oral statements and " postings" to the Internet
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, hereinafter, "a.r.s." Armstrong
denies that he made any statements created and transmitted via e-mail
and by "posting" to a.r.s. Armstrong admits that CSI, Scientology,
Miscavige and the beneficiaries allege that any oral statements he
made or statements he posted to a.r.s., or any statements created and
transmitted via e-mail and by " posting" to a.r.s., should any such a
thing exist, are breaches of paragraph 7D of the mutual release and
the explicit terms of the injunction. Armstrong further admits that
since the February 1998 contempt order he has made more than 100,000
statements, oral or written, posted to a.r.s., or not posted to
a.r.s., that CSI, Scientology, Miscavige and the beneficiaries allege,
will allege, or act as if they would allege, are breaches of paragraph
7D of the mutual release and the explicit terms of the injunction.
Armstrong avers that the conditions of paragraph 7D of the mutual
release and the explicit terms of the injunction that would prohibit
him from making any of the statements he has made at any time are
illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid, impossible to perform,
anti-public policy, anti-American, anti-religion, diabolical, insane
and clearly unenforceable. Armstrong lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that the
date of each alleged breach of the more than 200 alleged breaches CSI,
Scientology, Miscavige and the beneficiaries are alleging is set forth
in Exhibit E to their complaint, and Armstrong is therefore unable to
admit or deny the same. Armstrong denies that a short description of
the substance of each alleged breach of the more than 200 alleged
breaches CSI, Scientology, Miscavige and the beneficiaries are
alleging is set forth in Exhibit E to their complaint.

[End Quote]

>ALTHOUGH
>DEFENDANT STATES THAT FACT 11 IS UNDISPUTED, THIS AT MOST SHOWS THAT
>HE ADMITS THAT EACH OF THE 201 INCIDENTS OCCURRED. EXAMINATION OF
>EXHIBIT E TO THE COMPLAINT, WHICH BRIEFLY DESCRIBES EACH OF THE 201
>INCIDENTS, REVEALS MANY INCIDENTS WHICH DO NOT APPEAR ON THEIR FACE
>TO VIOLATE PARAGRAPH 7(D) (E.G., PICKETING, OFFERING TO PROVIDE
>TESTIMONY OR DECLARATION, STATING HE WILL TELL RUSSIANS ABOUT
>SCIENTOLOGY, PARTICIPATING IN A CEREMONY, "CALL[ING] IN TO A
>RADIO SHOW," ETC.).
>
>[End Quote]
>
>© Gerry Armstrong
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org