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

 
 
 
 

The Scientology v. Armstrong Cases

I have been asked a number of times about the signing away of basic human rights, and the subject just came up again on a.r.s. in specific reference to the Scientology cult's "breach of contract" cases against me. Because the rights that Scientology claims they contracted away are so many and so basic, because the subject "contract" involves so many individuals and entities, because it is possible to examine its effects, including the cult's efforts to enforce it, over an almost seventeen year period, and because there is such a wealth of documentation of the related judicial and extra-judicial events, these cases provide in fact a very useful paradigm for studying that subject.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:09:15 +0200, Tilman Hausherr <tilman @berlin.snafu.de> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:35:37 -0500, "JB@nowhere"
><mblackjac1@donteventhinkaboutit,cox.net> wrote in
><hUkeb.8913$Rd4.7934@fed1read07>:
>
>>Hey, Michael, where do you get "quasi-legal"? To the best of my knowledge,
>>you cannot sign away basic Human rights. Period. Am I wrong here?
>
>Yes. The Gerry Armstrong cases showed that you can.

Not exactly. With or without the Gerry Armstrong cases, it is obvious that anyone *can* "sign away basic human rights." The real question is whether or not such a signing away of basic human rights is lawfully *judicially* enforceable.

The fact that Scientology obtained a court order in California that enforces its "contract" that strips me of my basic human rights does not mean that such an order is lawful.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/injunction-csi-v- armstrong.html
Indeed, the U.S. Constitution, all the U.S. statutes and case law that I have read, as well as all logic, dictate that it is not lawful for a court in the U.S. to enforce a "contract' that strips a person of the basic human rights that Scientology claims it has successfully stripped from me. The final judicial outcome of the cases may very well be a ruling that such a "contract" is not lawful, and that judicial enforcement is therefore not permissible lawfully. I believe that rather than permit such an outcome, the Miscavige regime would opt for my assassination.

I have had legal opinions here in Germany stating that the basic human rights that Scientology and Scientologists claim that they have stripped from me in the U.S. may not be stripped from a person lawfully using the German judicial system. That is certainly why the cultists have not tried to use the courts here to silence me and to have me jailed for my non-silence.

I have also had legal opinions stating that what the cult is doing in the U.S. to strip me of my basic human rights is not lawful there as well. I am proceeding in the latest Scientology lawsuit
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/complaint-cv021632.html
and continuing to refuse to be stripped of those rights because I believe, and have solid legal grounds for that belief, that the orders the cult obtained, that purport to strip me of those rights, are unlawful.

The unlawful, human rights-destroying conditions of Scientology's " contract" and the unlawful efforts to enforce them are increasingly relevant internationally because of the cultists' big push during the last few years to portray and position themselves as great "human rights" defenders and champions. The Armstrong cases demonstrate beyond any argument that in truth the cultists are all suppressors and destroyers of human rights, and that their whole "human rights" campaign is a fraud, so these cases have to be a major concern to them. See, e.g., my response to the cult's recent opening of its new "human rights office" in Brussels, and its new "Proclamation on Religion, Human Rights and Society."
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/armstrong-ltr-2003-09-28- brussels.html

Scientology paid me to dismiss my lawsuit against the cult for fraud, for years of abuse inside, and for years of fair game attacks after leaving. The cult did not pay me, even though they later say they did, to be their defenseless punching bag, and to forfeit my basic human rights. Scientology obtained my signature on its "contract," which they say strips me of my basic rights, by fraud and threat. My position, supported by the facts, law and logic, is that the basic human rights, which the cult says it stripped from me by contract, cannot lawfully be contracted away; or again, rather, that a U.S. court cannot lawfully enforce such contractual conditions. And further, that what the cult did to get my signature on its unlawful contract was unlawful.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/625.php [ .pdf] [ German]

No one -- not the Marin County judges, not the cult's lawyers, not any other lawyer, not a Scientologist, not a goon squadder, not any U.S. federal official -- has ever presented a cogent argument based on U.S. law, or international law, or logic, to convince me, or even try to convince me, that what the cult has done, and the court in the cult's service has done, to strip me of my basic human rights, is lawful.

The Marin County judge based his injunction that stripped me of my Constitutional defenses, and consequently my human rights, on a single California case, ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 307, 262 Cal.Rptr. 773 The Marin judge stated in his grant of summary adjudication, by which he eliminated all my Constitutional defenses:

First Amendment: First Amendment rights may be waived by contract. (See ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 307, 319.)

Dooley actually states, almost as an aside, since Dooley was apparently not asserting freedom of speech as a defense, but the litigant's privilege:

Moreover, it is possible to waive even First Amendment free speech rights by contract.

Note that Dooley says nothing about First Amendment *religious* rights, and that the Marin judge dropped Dooley's "free speech" qualifier in his order in order to dispose of my religious defenses. See, e.g., for my " religious defenses" then before the Marin judge, my separate statement of disputed and undisputed facts in opposition to Scientology's motion for summary adjudication of the twentieth cause of action of the second amended complaint.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/sep-stmt-20-coa-1995-09- 18.html

See my discussion of the judge's ruling and Dooley in my Appellant's Opening Brief, filed in 1997 in the appeal I took from the Marin injunction and judgment.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/appeal/aob-a075027.html

In his opposition to Scn's [[Plaintiff and Respondent Scientology]] motion for summary adjudication of its twentieth cause of action, GA [[Defendant and Appellant Gerry Armstrong]] argued that what Scn sought with its SA [[Settlement Agreement]] and its enforcement was to impermissibly prohibit his Constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights. (CT 8272,3) [[Clerk's Transcript on Appeal]] Judge Thomas's ruling on GA's presented defense was incredibly clipped: "First Amendment: First Amendment rights may be waived by

-45-

contract. (See ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley (1989)214 Cal.App.3d 307, 319.)" (CT 8680)
But Dooley concerns an employee's agreement not to disclose confidential information. It is not at all similar to the situation in this case. None of the information GA possessed was confidential. Indeed, Judge Breckenridge stated in his decision, affirmed on appeal:

"[GA] and his counsel are free to speak or communicate upon any of [GA's] recollections or his life as a Scientologist or the contents of any exhibit received in evidence or marked for identification and not specifically ordered sealed." (CT 5950)

The Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision also refused Scn's effort to have the record on appeal sealed. (CT 6903) All of what GA has to say is already a matter of public record, and in no way confidential to anyone.

This case is different from Dooley because it involves, not confidential information learned on a job, but GA's experiences, now over a 28 year period, with an organization which has subjected him, and continues to subject him, to the nightmare that goes by the name fair game. This case is profoundly different from Dooley because it involves the unthinkable concept of Scn being able to say whatever it wants about GA, in exercise of its free speech right and in furtherance of its fair game doctrine, while he may not exercise his free speech right to defend himself. Pursuant to the SA and the permanent injunction, every Scientologist, every Scn lawyer and every Scn agent can say whatever they want about GA and he may not respond. Dooley does not support such an obnoxious idea.

That "First Amendment [free speech] rights may be waived by contract" does not mean that all free speech rights may be waived by contract. As with all contracts, a contract waiving the very basic right of free speech must be reasonable, and must be legal. There is a limit, and that is a limit to be decided by the trier of fact, not hidden away with the gloss that first amendment rights may be waived by contract. Could the US require, in order to settle a case, that a person never again mention this great nation? Unless of course subpoenaed?

-46-

Could California require to settle a case, or for any reason, that a person never again mention this great state? Or rather, would any court consider enforcing such " contracts?" Could a court enforce a contract requiring that a person not discuss the Republicans? The Democrats? The Communists? Politics? Would any court entertain a lawsuit to collect on a $50,000 liquidated damages provision in such a contract? If free speech rights can be waived by contract, could a court enforce a contract someone signed, perhaps because his attorney told him it was not worth the paper it was printed on, in which he agreed to not speak at all, about anything? No. There must be a limit to what speech can be contracted away. Here, GA has been sued 5 times, driven into bankruptcy, driven from his job, black PRed and pilloried. The purpose of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech is to provide a defense for all citizens from such things, and indeed to prevent them from happening.

It is perhaps acceptable that Scn pays people, or even contracts with them for their silence. It is, however, completely unacceptable and impermissible for our Courts to enforce such contracts. When Courts cease such enforcement, Scn will perhaps cease its determination to silence people and its determination to rewrite history. The people will then get what they are owed in order to make informed choices which is their due: the free flow of truthful information.

(Double square brackets ("[[ ]]") added this date.)

From the time I filed the opening brief in 1997, I have continued to study this issue, as I have continued to be targeted in the cult's efforts to judicially enforce the settlement "contract's" silence and non-assistance and non-advice conditions. As a result, I have increased my understanding of my defenses and increased my certainty that what the Marin judge gave the cult is unlawful. His utter refusal to actually deal with my Constitutional defenses, except with this disgraceful, inane and altered Dooley citation, his refusal to look at other evidence, which, if he had acknowledged that evidence, would have required the rejection of the cult's summary adjudication motion and required the grant of a trial, plus his abusive treatment of my lawyer Ford Greene in a series of hearings, convince me that this judge was either deranged or corrupted, or both.

Here was a case involving millions of dollars, in fact, as it turns out, billions or even trillions of dollars, Constitutional and human rights issues of global importance, an injunction so insane and so violative of basic human rights and logic that people are stunned when they grasp its meaning, and this judge wouldn't let Ford speak, cut him off, and threatened him with jail if he continued to present my defenses. The judge's behavior appeared to me to be that of a person driven mad by his guilty knowledge that what he was doing, or required to do by the cult, was unlawful. Then he sealed the court file, without any approval from me, to hide his irrational, unlawful actions.

Of course, what this judge then did, by signing Scientology's contempt order, with no valid service of the cult's order to show cause, to punish me for my sending a declaration to U.S. Federal Judge Whyte, confirms that judicial derangement or corruption. I sent my declaration to the federal judge to advise him of a letter I received from Scientology lawyer Andrew H. Wilson threatening me with prosecution if I complied with a document production subpoena served on me by Grady Ward in a case before that federal judge. Nowhere in the cult's contempt order that the state judge signed, and which was prepared by the same lawyer Wilson who threatened me, is there any mention of Wilson's threat, which was why I sent the federal judge the declaration.

The fact is that not only did I have a right to advise the federal judge of the threat from the cult, which right could not be signed away lawfully, nor ordered away lawfully by the state court, but I had a duty to do so. Indeed, it would have been a crime to not advise the federal judge, pursuant to 18 USC §4, Misprision of Felony, which states:

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals 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.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html

The crime that Wilson committed with his threat letter, and which I had a duty to make known to the federal judge, was a violation of 18 USC §1512, Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or an Informant, which 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 -
(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.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1512.html

Capitalizing on the Marin state court judge's contempt order, fine and jail sentence for my advising a federal judge of cult attorney Wilson's threat, Wilson then used that unlawful contempt order to unlawfully get the California Court of Appeal to dismiss my appeal from the state court's unlawful injunction and judgment, based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. My declaration of December 27, 1997 details a load of lies Wilson apparently felt he had to tell the Court of Appeal to obtain the unlawful dismissal of the appeal.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/appeal/decl-ga-1997- 12-27.html

Just a reading of Dooley and the Marin judge's application, or misapplication really, of that case to the situation with Scientology, is enough to know that there was something very demented or very dirty or both in control in that courtroom. Silencing someone about trade secrets that he acquired as an employee is completely inapposite to silencing someone about his religious beliefs. Or, again, rather, using a secular court of law to silence someone about his religious beliefs is entirely different from, and cannot logically be based upon, using a secular court to silence someone about commercial trade secrets.

The Scientology v. Armstrong cases do not involve someone claiming that trade secrets are religious beliefs, or that divulging commercial trade secrets is a religious belief. They are cases involving an organization that claims to be a religion, and claims most indignantly to not be a commercial enterprise, seeking to silence someone about his religious beliefs by law that applies to commercial trade secrets.

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, which necessarily involves the free expression of religious beliefs, but the Constitution does not guarantee the free expression of someone else's trade secrets. Indeed, it can be reasonably assumed that when Scientology chose to call itself a religion, it lost the secrecy of its "religious trade secrets," since how could there possibly be a free exercise of religion where the "secrets" cannot be expressed?

Likewise, when Scientology chose to call itself a "religion," it necessarily gave up any right it otherwise might have had to silence a person by contract about his experiences in the organization, since, by Scientology's choice to be a "religion," the person's experiences became " religious experiences." The person's beliefs concerning those "religious experiences" are necessarily "religious beliefs," if he so believes. His expression of those "religious beliefs" involving his "religious experiences" becomes the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and cannot lawfully be contracted away. The rational limitations on the free exercise of religion involve public safety or, conceivably, national security, neither of which concerns are present, at least openly, in any of the Armstrong cases.

If it really is possible to use secular U.S. courts to enforce contracts that compel or prohibit the expression of religious beliefs, it would end up with sheriffs hunting down people and jailing them for going to church, or not going to church, or praying, or not praying. Any church could require that its members sign a contract that they come to church every Sunday. They don't show up, the church sues them and gets an injunction. They miss another Sunday service, the church gets an osc re contempt, and gets the court to issue warrants for their arrest. And they get the parishioners hunted down by the Sheriffs and jailed. Some parishioner says his prayers in a manner not permitted by contract, off to the pokey.

Or the church has its members sign contracts to never say the name " Allah," and includes $50,000 liquidated damages penalties in the contracts. One day, some young parishioner gets the idea of studying Islam. He gets heard saying, "Allah is just all right with me." He's sued for $50,000, bankrupted, enjoined, fined and jailed. If he continued to say "Allah," it's $50,000 per utterance for the rest of his life, which would have to be spent in prison.

Or how about if the Imam contracts with all the young Muslims to never say the name "Jesus," and one of them decides to convert to Christianity? Now we've got secular courts nailing Christians $50,000 every time they say the Savior's name, and hunting them down and jailing them if they won't shut up.

Because they are "religions," the Christian or Islamic institutions can, like Scientology, tell any lie they want and make the most obscene of false promises, such as raising IQ a point per hour of prayer, to lure marks or recruits into their clutches and into their contracts. Like Scientology, these institutions can threaten and fair game their parishioners, or anyone else, into signing their rights away. They could, like Scientology, require, with a $50,000 liquidated damages penalty, that the contractees not assist people who are adverse to the church's or mosque's interests.

What is the difference between a Christian, or Islamic, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Jewish religious organization using the secular courts to jail a person for saying "Jesus," or "Mohammed," or "Buddha," or "Krishna," or "Moses," or expressing his religious beliefs regarding any of those religions, and Scientology using the secular courts to jail a person for saying "Xenu?" If they are all religions, there is no difference, and using the U.S.'s secular courts for any such purpose is not lawful.

The Scientology cult, of course, although claiming the identity and status of "religion," is primarily a criminal enterprise. Thus it is even less lawful to use the U.S. secular courts to silence a person about his knowledge of and experiences in that cult. That I believe that Scientology is a criminal enterprise does not change the fact that the cult must also live by its own claim that it is a religion. As they prove every day, in the U.S. it is perfectly acceptable to be both religion and crime syndicate.

Therefore, a secular court cannot say that my statements that Hubbard was a pathological liar, that David Miscavige is a criminal, and that all Scientologists are liars, are not my religious beliefs. The fact that I can prove these statements by the scientific method, by law, facts and logic does not render them non- religious beliefs. They are "religious beliefs" because the criminal Scientology cult chooses to call itself a "religion." And they are " religious beliefs" because they're my beliefs about these matters. I get to say what are my religious beliefs, although logically I cannot claim, and am not claiming, that a commercial enterprise's trade secrets are my religious beliefs just to be able to divulge them. The Scientologists' attacks on my religious beliefs make the Scientologists, by their own standards, religious bigots. That's also both my religious belief, as well as a claim provable in a court of law.

Scientology and its lawyers believe, moreover, that they can silence me concerning, and claim $50,000 and have me jailed for expressing, what they believe are my religious beliefs about Scientology even if they're my religious beliefs about something other that Scientology, and about something other than what the Scientology cultists believe my beliefs are about. See, e.g., item #49 on the cult's list of alleged "breaches" of their "contract."
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/breaches.html
I write in that 1999 usenet post: "I'll say $1,500,000. That's my figure."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=37343994.170813948%40news.dowco.com& oe=UTF8&output= gplain
The cult claims on its "breaches" list that what I wrote is a "Posting by Armstrong in which he guesses how much Dennis Erlich received in his settlement with the Church." I was doing no such thing. The cultists want $50,000 from me for their own paranoid hallucination. And lest they now get another wrong idea, "my figure" has increased immeasurably since I made this post in 1999, but it's still *my* figure, not Dennis Erlich's.

The Armstrong "contract's" "non-assistance" and " non-advice" condition, each violation of which also results in a $50,000 liquidated damages penalty, is just as lawfully judicially unenforceable as the "silencing of religious expression" condition. The "non-assistance" and "non-advice" condition is even more dangerous because of the possibilities it opens up for terrible social abuses by other hate groups. Scientology claims that I may "not assist or advise anyone, including individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, or governmental agencies contemplating any claim or engaged in litigation or involved in or contemplating any activity adverse to the interests of any entity or class of persons" that comprise every Scientology org, every corporation, every group, every affiliated company or entity, and all of their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns.

To actually be able to perform this obligation, I would have to know what are all the interests of all of these thousands of Scientology or Scientology- affiliated corporations, organizations, groups, companies and persons. I would also have to know every activity that every individual, partnership, association, corporation, or governmental agency, which I might be considering assisting or advising, was involved in or was contemplating. Then I would have to evaluate whether any of those activities that any of those individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, or governmental agencies, which I might be considering assisting or advising, were involved in or contemplating were, adverse to the interests of any of those thousands of Scientology or Scientology-affiliated corporations, organizations, groups, companies and persons. Scientology, of course, has never even supplied me with a list of all of their thousands of Scientology or Scientology- affiliated corporations, organizations, groups, companies and persons, let alone a statement of what all of the interests of those thousands of Scientology or Scientology- affiliated corporations, organizations, groups, companies and persons are, so that I can even begin to perform such an evaluation.

According to Scientology, just not "having the correct technology" is a "high crime," or "suppressive act," that makes the perpetrator of that high crime a "suppressive person," and "fair game." Also, simply not "knowing the technology," and not "knowing it is correct" are suppressive acts for which a person can be fair gamed. See, e.g., L. Ron Hubbard, Introduction to Scientology Ethics, © 1998 L. Ron Hubbard Library, p. 298.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/ise-294.html
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/ise-298.html
See, also HCOPL 7 February 1965 "Keeping Scientology Working," pp 1,2.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/ksw1-1.html
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/ksw1-2.html

It is clear that anyone who doesn't have the correct technology, or doesn't know the technology, or doesn't know it is correct, is engaged in, no matter what they're engaged in, activities adverse to each and every one of the thousands of Scientology or Scientology-affiliated corporations, organizations, groups, companies and persons considered by the Armstrong "contract." Since no wog® (non-Scientologist), by definition, has the correct technology, knows the correct technology or knows it's correct, every wog® is at all times engaged in activities adverse to the interests of all those thousands of Scientology or Scientology-affiliated corporations, organizations, groups, companies and persons. Therefore, by the Scientology cult's contract, I am prohibited at all times and in all circumstances from assisting or advising any wog®. And if I do assist or advise any wog® at any time or in any circumstance, according to the cult, I must pay $50,000 and be jailed. This is, of course, insane. But then Scientology is insane, its practitioners are insane, and they have demonstrated already that their interpretation of the "contract" and their efforts to enforce it are insane. This statement, also, of course, is, in addition to being factual and scientifically and legally provable, my religious belief.

The persons whom Scientology seeks to prevent me from assisting or advising comprise a class of citizens called "suppressive persons," or "SPs." The partnerships, associations, corporations, or governmental agencies that Scientology seeks to prevent me from assisting or advising comprise what the cult calls "suppressive groups," which are operated and staffed by SPs. The persons comprising the suppressive persons and suppressive groups form a class, just as Scientology claims in its "contract" that the persons comprising the "contract 's" "beneficiaries" form a class. Indeed, the cult's own " scriptures" identify suppressive persons as a "class." Since Scientology claims to be a religion, and the invention and identification of the class called SPs is by "religious" criteria, "religious technology” and "religious" "scripture," SPs or suppressive persons form a "religious class." The Scientology cultists have had me classified as a "suppressive person" for over twenty-one years.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/ga-sp-declare.html
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/ga-sp-declare-rev.html

"Suppressive person" or "SP" is an epithet and a hate term, the closest equivalent to which, outside of Scientology, in the modern English vernacular, is probably "kike." SPs are to Scientologists as kikes are to nazis. Scientology and Scientologists are at present very active in spreading into the wog world® their kikefication of persons whose interests are adverse to their own. "Wog®" is a racist term, equivalent to " nigger," but meaning in Scientology, not a person of a dark-skinned race, but a person, regardless of coloration, of the human race, or homo sapiens. Scientology teaches that Scientologists comprise a new, superior, indeed master race, they call "homo novis," or "homo scientologicus," and that wogs® are an inferior, less aware, less intelligent, less able and less ethical race. In contrast to wog®, "SP" is more a term of Scientologists' *religious* hatred and bigotry. Since the Scientology cult does not permit SPs to be Scientologists, they are necessarily all wogs®. SPs, by Scientologists, are hated and vilified both by race and by religion, and the term is analogous to "nigger kikes."

Scientology's non-assistance and non-advice condition in its Armstrong "contract" is equivalent to a condition that prohibits a person from assisting or advising a racial class, such as "Blacks," "Asians," " Caucasians, " or "Native Americans," and prohibits a person from assisting or advising a religious class, such as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews or Hindus. Such a contractual condition is not in the U.S. lawfully judicially enforceable. Assessing someone $50,000 in damages for assisting a person of one of those racial or religious classes is insane. But, of course, and as is obvious, Scientology practitioners are insane. It is in fact my religious experience that inside Scientology I was also insane, because inside Scientology insanity is required and enforced, and that my only hope of becoming sane was to escape from the cult. Sending a person to jail for assisting or advising someone in one of those racial or religious classes is a more insane circumstance than what existed in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein regime.

If such "adversarial" "contracts" are lawful, then "friendly" contracts with the same function would also be lawful. Thus, it would be possible for white racists to all contract with each other to not assist or advise black people. A white racist bus driver, by contract, could not assist a black person by giving him a ride in his bus, otherwise the white racist would be hauled off to court, fined and jailed. Anti-Semites could contract with each other to prohibit any assistance being given to Jews. An anti-Semitic police officer would be compelled by his "contract" to not assist any Jew who might be the victim of a crime. Otherwise the police officer would himself be fined and jailed.

These scenarios are, of course, impossible, because such " contracts" are unlawful, being in violation of the civil rights of racially or religiously determined classes of citizens. The "contract" that the Scientology cult and the Scientology cultists have crafted, by which they claim that I am prohibited from assisting or advising the class of citizens whose interests are adverse to the Scientologists' interests, i.e., "SPs," is just as violative of civil rights. Scientology's "contract" no more lawfully trumps and invalidates civil rights statutes than other racists' or other religious bigots' "friendly contracts" would lawfully trump and invalidate civil rights statutes.

If I had a job as a bus driver, I could no more lawfully be compelled to not assist an SP passenger than the white racist bus driver could lawfully be compelled to not assist the black passenger. If I became a cop, I could no more lawfully be compelled to not assist an SP victim than the anti-Semitic officer could lawfully be compelled to not assist a victim who was Jewish. Since my job and my calling is assisting SPs against the Scientology cult's hatred and attacks, I can no more be lawfully prohibited by contract from performing the functions of that job and calling than a doctor can be lawfully prohibited by contract from treating SPs, or a Minister can be lawfully prohibited from preaching to SPs, or a Prime Minister can be lawfully prohibited from governing SPs.

Because what Scientology is trying to do to me by contract is unlawful, because the cult obtained my signature on its "contract" by unlawful means, because the use that the cult has made of its unlawful contract is unlawful, because the "contract" contracts every org, corporation, group, affiliated entity, and all of their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns to "benefit" from these unlawful actions, and because these actions are all aimed at unlawfully depriving me of my rights and privileges secured to me by the U.S. Constitution and laws, all of the cult's and the cultists' actions, from the moment they got my own lawyer to pressure and con me into the signing of their "contract," comprise a massive and continuing violation of U.S. Federal criminal civil rights statutes, specifically 18 USC §241 and §242.

In fact, quite recently a U.S. Government Official, whose position requires that he deal with the Scientology problem, and with whom I had a lengthy meeting, acknowledged to me that what the cult is doing with me is a violation of these civil rights statutes.

18 USC §241, "Conspiracy Against Rights," in pertinent part, states:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ...
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/241fin.htm

18 USC §242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law," in pertinent part, states:

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 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;
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm

The summary for 18 USC §242 on this U.S. Government site states:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Since there is no doubt that the Scientologists and their agents and lawyers conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate me in the free exercise and enjoyment of my rights and privilege secured to me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate me because of my having so exercised the same, there is no doubt that they are committing a continuing crime and that these persons constitute a criminal enterprise. Since that is true, I have a right and duty to make known that conspiracy, crime and criminal enterprise to persons in civil authority in the U.S., which I have done and continue to do. The rights or privileges secured to me by the U.S. Constitution or laws, that the Scientology cultists and their agents have conspired to injure or threaten me into not exercising and punish me for exercising, include, but are not limited to, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, self defense, privacy, the litigant’s privilege, attorney- client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, clergyman-penitent privilege, and freedom from slavery.

What the cult has done and continues to do to try to silence me about, and punish me for communicating about its conspiracy, crimes and criminal enterprise constitutes another crime, specifically 18 USC §1512 (see, supra). And, of course, the cult's efforts to silence me, and punish me for communicating about its efforts to silence me, and punish me for communicating about its conspiracy, crimes and criminal enterprise, constitute another, and a continuing crime, ad inf.

What the Marin judge did to unlawfully strip me of my basic human rights was done under the camouflage color of ITT v. Dooley, as discussed above. Since what the judge did was a violation of 18 USC §242, I cannot lawfully be silenced about that crime. And again, of course, the cult's and the Marin court's efforts to silence me about, and punish me for communicating about that crime constitute another obstruction crime pursuant to 18 USC §1512. What the Marin judge did, after unlawfully stripping me of my basic rights with his unlawful injunction, to unlawfully jail and fine me, under the inky color of his own unlawful order, constitutes yet another crime pursuant to 18 USC §242. Ad inf.

If it is lawful to silence someone about the commission of a crime by contract, then extortion would be legal. Since I am not an extortionist, and since I believed at the time of the 1986 "settlement" that the cult was involved in criminal activity, I was not selling my silence about that activity. I agreed to dismiss my claims against the cult, I was paid in settlement of those claims, and I withdrew from the public controversy to give the cultists the opportunity they said they desired and needed in order to gracefully cease their criminal activities. But I was not shaking them down, as they have claimed, to get them to pay me so I would not reveal their crimes.

Nor am I attempting to extort anything from them now. And I am proving that I am not extorting anything, and that I am not myself involved in their criminal activities, by revealing their crimes, to governments, to law enforcement, to the media, and to the public. I am performing my duty pursuant to 18 USC §4 (see, supra) by making known, and not concealing, my knowledge of the cult's commission of all the felonies that I have identified herein, all of which are cognizable by U.S. Courts.

It stands to reason that in addition to my duty to inform the civil authorities of crimes I know are being committed, I also have a right to inform the media and the public about these crimes, and that this right cannot be stripped from me by court order. Otherwise, the courts could silence people about the courts' own crimes, and the public would never know. That is essentially what the Marin judge did when he prohibited me from mentioning his unlawful rulings. The U.S. civil officials responsible for ending the Scientology's continuing crimes against me have so far not acted to stop the cult's criminal persecution. It is arguable that by refusing to act to stop Scientology's clear violations of U.S. civil rights statutes those responsible officials are abetting the cult in its criminal activities, and are even in violation themselves of 18 USC §242. But it is inarguable, in my opinion, that I have a right to communicate to the media and public about those officials' inaction.

Since the Armstrong "contract" contains conditions with unlawful purposes, specifically the violation of 18 USC §241, these conditions are not only lawfully judicially unenforceable, but I would be party to that crime if I participated in the achieving of the unlawful purpose of these conditions. Contractual conditions with an unlawful purpose are necessarily not lawfully judicially enforceable, or, e.g., murder contracts would be lawful. If a contracted murderer failed to perform his obligation pursuant to the contract the U.S. Courts would jail him for not murdering his victim.

In the Armstrong "contract" scenario, a close parallel would be a murder-victim contract, wherein a person contracts with a murderer to be his victim. Perhaps the victim was pressured into signing the "contract" by his lawyer, who was himself being threatened by the murderer. And perhaps the victim's lawyer assured the victim that the "contract" was not worth the paper it was printed on. But after the "contract" is signed, and perhaps after assuring the "contractual" victim that he would be there for him, the lawyer bugs out. The murderer trots his contract into court, perhaps in Marin County California. The murderer digs up a judge who rules that the " contract" is lawful, and that the victim must submit to being murdered, or go to jail.

Since the judge has ruled that the murder-victim "contract" is lawful, the murderer has the perfect excuse, indeed duty, to chase the victim all across the planet to murder him. Otherwise, the murderer would be himself in violation of his murder-victim "contract," and the victim could have the "contract" rescinded by the murderer's failure to perform his contractual obligation, i.e., by failing to murder the victim. Similarly, since the Armstrong "contract" has a clear unlawful purpose, the cult would not be performing their contractual obligation if they didn't continue to seek to unlawfully deprive me of my basic human rights. I could have the "contract" rescinded if Scientology failed to perform their unlawful obligation to unlawfully deprive me of those rights.

Again, this scenario is insane, but that's exactly what can be expected if contracts with unlawful purposes are declared by courts to be lawful. When LA Superior Court Judge Bruce R. Geernaert was presented with the cult's " contract" to enforce, before the cultists found the willing Marin judge, he stated:

So my belief is Judge Breckenridge, being a very careful judge....if he had been presented that whole agreement and if he had been asked to order its performance, he would have dug his feet in because that is one .... I'll say one of the most ambiguous, one-sided agreements I have ever read. And I would not have ordered the enforcement of hardly any of the terms if I had been asked to, even on the threat that, okay the case is not settled. I know we like to settle cases. But we don't like to settle cases and, in effect, prostrate the court system into making an order which is not fair or in the public interest.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/geernaert-1991-12-23.html

Thus, in order to perform their obligations pursuant to their " contract," the cultists had to prostrate the court system into making its injunction, and series of contempt orders and arrest warrants, that were not fair or in the public interest. The Marin Judge, Gary W. Thomas, was extremely willing to be prostrated by the cultists so they could achieve their unlawful ends.

The Scientology cultists and their lawyers must believe that their assiduous efforts to enforce their "contract" and the injunction that they got the Marin judge to sign, are in part "necessary" to demonstrate that they have a good faith belief that their "contract," their injunction, and what they are doing to enforce them, are lawful.

That is also why I have not only a right but a duty to inform them, and indeed to inform the whole world, that what they are doing is unlawful. Since it is unlawful and they have notice, over and over again, by my posts such as this to Usenet newsgroups, which the cultists definitely get, by my website, which they definitely read, and by e-mails to every Scientology org or group that I can reach, they cannot forever keep up the pretense that they "believe" their unlawful "contract," injunction, contempt orders and warrants are lawful.

When they are finally forced to acknowledge that the conditions of their "contract" that they have paid so much and worked so hard to enforce are unlawful, and that their enforcement efforts and "successes" are unlawful, the fact that I have worked so hard for so long to advise them of their unlawfulness, and the fact that they have continued their ridiculous, but terribly cruel pretense of lawfulness for so long, and refused all invitations and opportunities to stop the pretense and to cancel or withdraw all their unlawful documents, it could be devastating to the whole criminal Miscavige regime.

Their stubborn, pretended self-righteous refusal to justify, explain or support the unlawful conditions of their "contract," or their unlawful injunction, contempt orders and warrants, while using these unlawful and unlawfully obtained documents for black PR purposes and to cause me trouble with several national governments and with law enforcement, will ultimately be seen as proof of their guilty knowledge of the criminality of what they're doing. See, e.g., the cult's flaunting of their unlawful orders on their Gerry Armstrong hate pages:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/armstrong_docs.html
They must take these documents down because they're unlawful, and they know they're unlawful, but the cultists can't take them down because they know that it would be an acknowledgement that these documents are indeed unlawful. They have a major present time problem. They can, of course, assassinate me, which is very possible because, as what they're already doing with me demonstrates, they're a criminal enterprise, and insane.

According to their own "technology" (oops, "scriptures), what the Scientology cultists are doing with me and with all their unlawful documents and efforts, which they know beyond any doubt are unlawful, is insane, and the cultists are insane. Hubbard defines "insanity" for them as " simply must reach--can't reach, must withdraw--can't withdraw." L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary, © 1983, p. 210. The cultists must withdraw from trying to unlawfully destroy my basic human rights, and must withdraw their unlawful orders that unlawfully judicially destroy my basic human right. But they can't withdraw from their unlawful efforts and they can't withdraw their unlawful documents, because, as I noted, it would show that they were indeed unlawful. So they've made themselves insane.

Hubbard also writes about "insanity:"

the point between where a person who is sane goes thereafter insane is very precise. It's the exact point at which he begins to stop something. At that moment he is insane. At first he is insane on that one subject; then he can get another idée fixe and become insane on another subject, thus getting cumulative insanity. But there is no doubt of his insanity on that one subject, something that he is trying to stop.
Ibid.

And there is no doubt that Scientology, all its organizations, corporations, groups, affiliated companies and entities, and all of their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns are trying to stop me in my free exercise and enjoyment of my rights and privilege secured to me by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Scientology, and all those entities and persons are, by the definitions contained in their own "technology," insane.

Hubbard, was, of course, also insane, and he missed the boat with his identification of the point where a person goes insane. Whether a person will go insane at the point he begins to stop something, if he goes insane at all, depends on what he is trying to stop. People who try to stop committing crimes, as, e.g. the Scientologists, who are committing continuous crimes against me, will not go insane by stopping their commission of those crimes. In fact, the Scientologists might actually go sane if they stopped committing all their continuous crimes against me.

On the other hand, people who try to stop what is not criminal, but what is decent, honest, helpful and creative, as my free exercise and enjoyment of my rights and privileges are, very well may go insane. I am not trying to stop the Scientology cult's or the Scientology cultists' free exercise and enjoyment of their rights and privileges. Indeed, I urge all of them to freely exercise and enjoy those rights and privileges, and not be deprived of those rights and privileges by the criminal cabal they foolishly permit to prostrate them. Thus, I am not insane. But by their frightful efforts to try to stop me in expressing my religious beliefs, and my creative thoughts, the cultists have in truth driven themselves completely nuts.

In complete support of what I've written here on the Scientologists' mental state, Hubbard further defines "insanity" as "the overt or covert but always complex and continuous determination to harm or destroy." HCOB 28 November 1970, "Psychosis." Hubbard also writes in this HCOB: "All characteristics classified as those of the "suppressive person" are in fact those of the insane person." All of Scientology's orgs, corporations, groups and affiliated entities, and all of their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns, are determined, and acting continuously, overtly and covertly, to destroy my basic human rights, to destroy my reputation, to destroy my relationships, to destroy my life, and to destroy me. In their insane determination and their insane actions, of course, they are destroying their own basic human rights, their own reputations, their own relationships, their own lives and themselves. They are all truly insane. And they are all, according to their own dictates, suppressive persons and suppressive groups.

As I said, I am not seeking to harm or destroy the basic human rights, or reputations, or relationships, or lives or persons of any of those suppressive and insane Scientology groups, or any of those suppressive and insane Scientologists, or any of their suppressive and insane agents, lawyers and assigns. In fact, I am doing what I can to end their suppressive and insane determinations and actions so that they become sane and can lead decent, unharmful, undestructive lives. It would be cruel indeed if I did not speak out but succumbed to the Scientologists' dramatization of their evil, insane and suppressive intention to harm and destroy me.

It would be heartless of me to not do what I can to make the Scientologists sane by getting them to end their efforts to destroy my basic human rights, to rescind the unlawful conditions of the Armstrong "contract," to dismiss their suppressive lawsuits against me, and to revoke their judgment, injunction, contempt orders and arrest warrants. I understand that it is almost impossible for this to happen, because all the Scientology organizations, corporations, groups and affiliated entities, and all of their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns have been driven, by their determination to harm and destroy me, almost hopelessly insane. But, still, as Goethe said, in all things it is better to hope than to despair.

The Scientologists, their agents, lawyers and assigns, however, must truly be despairing about ever getting sane, because not only are they all trying to stop my free exercise and enjoyment of my rights and privileges, not only are they all determined, and trying madly, covertly and overtly, to harm and destroy my basic human rights, my relationships and my life, and not only are they all desperate to withdraw and utterly unable to withdraw from all that criminality and insanity, but they all are also trying to stop everyone in the world who might be acting in concert with me from the free exercise and enjoyment of those people's rights and privileges, they all are determined, and trying madly, covertly and overtly, to harm and destroy the basic human rights, the relationships and the lives of all those people, and they certainly all must be going berserk trying to withdraw, and being powerless to withdraw, from all that colossal criminality and psychosis.

The letter of June 3, 2002 from cult attorney Elliot Abelson to University of Alberta Professor Stephen Kent threatening Dr. Kent with prosecution pursuant to the "acting in concert" "condition," which the cult snuck into the injunction that they got the Marin judge to sign, is an excellent example of the level of insanity attainable by the Scientologists, and obviously by even their lawyers, with the application of their standard overt, covert, complex and continuous determination to harm or destroy.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/abelson-ltr-kent.html

Dr. Kent recently executed a declaration to correct the lies that Abelson writes in his threat letter.

In his letter, Mr. Abelson avers that I made trips to Europe where Gerry Armstrong and I appeared together at various public gatherings, all with the same anti- religious agenda. I have never been in Europe with Mr. Armstrong. I have never appeared together with Mr. Armstrong at any public gathering in Europe, or at any public gathering anywhere else in the world. I have never appeared at any public gathering in Europe or anywhere else in the world with the same anti-religious agenda, or any anti-religious agenda whatsoever.

Mr. Abelson avers that in public statements or appearances I have made I have acted in concert with Mr. Armstrong, that an injunction issued by the Marin Superior Court against Mr. Armstrong and persons acting on concert with him applies to me, and that I am bound by its terms. I do not believe that such an injunction, as Mr. Abelson is interpreting it, is lawful, and I believe that Mr. Abelson’s threat is unlawful. I have continued to make public statements and appearances in my professional work as I did before receiving Mr. Abelson’s threatening letter, and I will continue to make such public statements and appearances.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/decl-kent-2003-09-23.html

As Dr. Kent states, he had never been in Europe with me, never appeared with me at any public gathering in Europe or anywhere else, and neither he nor I had ever appeared at any gathering at any time with an "anti-religious agenda." But the Scientologists and their agents and lawyers rarely let the truth get in the way of their determination to rocket their way to total lunacy.

Since I am prohibited from assisting or advising any wog®, if I were ever to get a job, I would necessarily be assisting my employer, who must necessarily be a wog®. My employer, by making it possible for me to assist a wog®, by giving me a job, would necessarily be acting in concert with me. By way of example, Bob Minton was sued for "acting in concert" with me by giving me a computer.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/complaint-cv021632.html

The insane cult would certainly leap at the chance to sue someone for giving me a job. Since the wog® employer would be acting in concert with me, he would likewise be in violation of the insane cult's insane contract if he assisted anyone, either by giving them jobs, or by providing some kind of product or service that assisted them. So the cult would have to act, pursuant to its " contract" to shut down the company and operation of anyone who might consider employing me.

Since potentially any company might employ me to assist some wog® somewhere, the cult necessarily must stop all companies and all production everywhere, except for Scientology companies and affiliated companies, of course. This scenario is clearly insane, but Scientology and its practitioners, agents and lawyers, as has been shown, and as they covertly, overtly and continuously prove every day, are insane, and as they continue to desperately try to stop the unstoppable, try to harm the unharmful, and try to withdraw from what they can't withdraw from, they can but become ever more insane, and their efforts to enforce their unlawful "contract" conditions and their unlawful court orders ever more crack-brained and criminal.

The Armstrong cases are extremely useful to anyone who seeks an understanding of Scientology's actual intentions, or, already having such an understanding, seeks facts and documentation with which to oppose the cult. My cases demonstrate, beyond any rational argument, that Scientology and virtually every Scientologist, are suppressors and destroyers of basic human rights. The very best document, to demonstrate that the human right Scientology and Scientologists seek is the "human right" to destroy human rights, is the "contract" they claim to have with me. This "contract" *binds* and *compels* each and every one of them to suppress and destroy human rights.

The Scientologists got what they wanted. They made it go right. They proved they're OT by doing what they intended, by making their postulates become reality. They got, by whatever corrupt means, a California judge to sign the document they put before him. And now they're stuck with it. What the cult has done to destroy my basic human rights is possibly the stupidest thing they've ever done. It is just as stupid as killing Lisa McPherson, because it is open, on-going and impeccably documented.

They can claim that Lisa's wrongful death was an anomaly, that it was old "tech," and that they don't do that any more, or that some rogue Scientologists went off the rails when they locked her up and abused her to death. But with the whole cult's unified effort to suppress and destroy my basic human rights, involving five lawsuits, billions of dollars, a mountain of court-stamped documents, and their well-preserved gloating in their black PR packs and on their Internet hate sites, they have none of the defenses or excuses they use for Lisa's killing.

Because the Scientologists have *contracted* themselves to suppress and destroy human rights, I think that most people who oppose the cult haven't grasped that they would be so incredibly stupid. So people have not yet made good use of the Armstrong "contract."
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a1/625.php [ .pdf] [ German]

But I think that people will sooner or later grasp the amazing gift this "contract" is to the cause, and every Scientologist will have to confront his or her participation in and support for the suppression and destruction of human rights that is the "contract's" valuable final product.

Not only are all of those people bound by this "contract" to suppress and destroy human rights, but the contract demonstrates beyond rational argument that the cult is, in clear contradiction of their PR and legal claims, a single entity, and that "separate identities" are a farce. Scientology "president" Heber Jentzsch binds, by *contract*, every org, corporation, franchise, group, front group, and affiliated entity, which would include all WISE companies, and all of their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns to participate in the same criminal conspiracy. What incredible overweening idiocy.

One of the amazing things in this situation is that none of those Scientology entities or persons can extricate themselves as "beneficiaries" of this human rights-destroying, criminal conspiracy contract without my approval. The "contract" states: "This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by Plaintiff and CSI." Any entity or person wishing to stop trying to destroy my human rights must get approval from the Miscavige regime, and the authorized regime representative must come to me to get my approval in writing before those entities or persons may to get out of the contract. Presumably, all Scientology entities and persons bound by the "contract" are delighted by their being "beneficiaries" of this "contract" and delighted with their participation in this criminal conspiracy, because no one has approached me to amend the "contract" to remove anyone as a "beneficiary."

Although I knew, and in fact was told by my attorney, at the time of the "settlement" in 1986, that I could not sign away the basic human rights that the Scientology cultists claim that the "contract" strips from me, I did not then realize just how unlawful, indeed criminal, the "contract" is. At first I thought that Scientology could not, and would be insane to try to, judicially enforce the silence and non-assistance conditions because the cultists had acted to waive any conceivable right to judicial enforcement by black PRing me publicly immediately following the "settlement." I believed, and still believe, that I could not have released them by contract to commit future torts, and that I had a right to defend myself and my friends from their attacks. Later, I came to see that even if Scientology had not acted to attack me and my friends, and thus waived any right the cultists might have had to enforce the silence and non- assistance conditions, these conditions were lawfully judicially unenforceable. These conditions strip from me, as I've discussed here, basic human rights, including First Amendment religious freedom, which cannot lawfully be stripped from someone by contract.

The cult's efforts to enforce their unlawful "contract" have been, of course, threatening, debilitating and ruinous to me, but I have weathered their threats and insanity, and now I'm grateful that such a diabolical " contract" exists, and I'm grateful that the cultists have gone to such outrageous lengths to enforce it. As gruesome and as insanity-making as the Marin judge's unlawful orders are that enforce the "contract" I have to be grateful for them too. What has happened with me has instilled in me the goal of having the cult end forever its policy and practice of binding its members and wogs® with all such "contracts" that unlawfully and cruelly strip them of their basic human rights.

I believe that the Armstrong "contract" and the Armstrong cases have the potential of achieving that goal. No one else should have to go through what this insane cult has put me through in their criminal conspiracy to destroy my human rights. And we wogs® will only experience an acceptable level of safety from Scientology's threats and predations when all of us, Scientologists and wogs®, are free to communicate our experiences and are free to assist each other.

I believe that sooner or later some U.S. lawyer who loves civil rights, loves civil rights cases, and would welcome and not be scared off by a high profile case of this magnitude against this gargantuan rights-destroying and monstrously litigious criminal cult, can do a great deal of good, have a lot of fun, and take a big career leap with this case.

In case there's any question as to whether or not I'm anti-American, I am totally on America's and Americans' side in this war. The Scientologists are criminally anti-American. By my refusal to obey the Marin court's orders, and by my refusal to be silenced by Scientology's threats and criminal conspiracy, I proclaim America to be a place where people's basic human rights cannot lawfully be destroyed. Scientology and Scientologists are postulating that America is a hateful, insecure place where the law can be used very easily to strip people of their basic rights.

Scientology wants an America where people are imprisoned for expressing religious beliefs that the Scientologists don't like. I say that America is a country where anyone can express his religious beliefs without fear of persecution. Scientology wants to make America a place where good people may not help citizens that the Scientologists force to wear patches saying "SP." I say America is a nation where anyone is free to help his neighbors, or anyone who needs help, regardless of their race or creed or the patches on their clothes.

 

 
 
 
 

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