The Scientology v. Armstrong Cases
I have been asked a number of times about the signing away of basic human
and the subject just came up again on a.r.s. in specific reference to the
cult's "breach of contract" cases against me. Because the rights
Scientology claims they contracted away are so many and so basic, because the
subject "contract" involves so many individuals and entities,
it is possible to examine its effects, including the cult's efforts to
it, over an almost seventeen year period, and because there is such a wealth
documentation of the related judicial and extra-judicial events, these cases
in fact a very useful paradigm for studying that subject.
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:09:15 +0200, Tilman Hausherr <tilman
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:35:37 -0500, "JB@nowhere"
><mblackjac1@donteventhinkaboutit,cox.net> wrote in
>>Hey, Michael, where do you get "quasi-legal"? To the best
>>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
or not such a signing away of basic human rights is lawfully *judicially*
The fact that Scientology obtained a court order in California that
its "contract" that strips me of my basic human rights does not
that such an order is lawful.
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
to enforce a "contract' that strips a person of the basic human rights
Scientology claims it has successfully stripped from me. The final judicial
of the cases may very well be a ruling that such a "contract" is
lawful, and that judicial enforcement is therefore not permissible lawfully.
believe that rather than permit such an outcome, the Miscavige regime would
for my assassination.
I have had legal opinions here in Germany stating that the basic human
that Scientology and Scientologists claim that they have stripped from me in
U.S. may not be stripped from a person lawfully using the German judicial
That is certainly why the cultists have not tried to use the courts here to
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
to strip me of my basic human rights is not lawful there as well. I am
in the latest Scientology lawsuit
and continuing to refuse to be stripped of those rights because I believe,
have solid legal grounds for that belief, that the orders the cult obtained,
purport to strip me of those rights, are unlawful.
The unlawful, human rights-destroying conditions of Scientology's "
and the unlawful efforts to enforce them are increasingly relevant
because of the cultists' big push during the last few years to portray and
themselves as great "human rights" defenders and champions. The
cases demonstrate beyond any argument that in truth the cultists are all
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,
my response to the cult's recent opening of its new "human rights
in Brussels, and its new "Proclamation on Religion, Human Rights and
Scientology paid me to dismiss my lawsuit against the cult for fraud, for
of abuse inside, and for years of fair game attacks after leaving. The cult
not pay me, even though they later say they did, to be their defenseless
bag, and to forfeit my basic human rights. Scientology obtained my signature
its "contract," which they say strips me of my basic rights, by
and threat. My position, supported by the facts, law and logic, is that the
human rights, which the cult says it stripped from me by contract, cannot
be contracted away; or again, rather, that a U.S. court cannot lawfully
such contractual conditions. And further, that what the cult did to get my
on its unlawful contract was unlawful.
No one -- not the Marin County judges, not the cult's lawyers, not any
lawyer, not a Scientologist, not a goon squadder, not any U.S. federal
-- has ever presented a cogent argument based on U.S. law, or international
or logic, to convince me, or even try to convince me, that what the cult has
and the court in the cult's service has done, to strip me of my basic human
The Marin County judge based his injunction that stripped me of my
defenses, and consequently my human rights, on a single California case, ITT
Products Corp. v. Dooley (1989) 214
Cal.App.3d 307, 262 Cal.Rptr. 773 The Marin judge stated in his grant of
adjudication, by which he eliminated all my Constitutional defenses:
First Amendment: First Amendment rights may be waived by contract. (See
Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 307, 319.)
Dooley actually states, almost as an aside, since Dooley was apparently
asserting freedom of speech as a defense, but the litigant's privilege:
Moreover, it is possible to waive even First Amendment free speech rights
Note that Dooley says nothing about First Amendment *religious* rights,
that the Marin judge dropped Dooley's "free speech" qualifier in
order in order to dispose of my religious defenses. See, e.g., for my "
defenses" then before the Marin judge, my separate statement of disputed
and undisputed facts in opposition to Scientology's motion for summary
of the twentieth cause of action of the second amended complaint.
See my discussion of the judge's ruling and Dooley in my Appellant's
Brief, filed in 1997 in the appeal I took from the Marin injunction and
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
Agreement]] and its enforcement was to impermissibly prohibit his
guaranteed First Amendment rights. (CT 8272,3) [[Clerk's Transcript on
Judge Thomas's ruling on GA's presented defense was incredibly clipped:
Amendment: First Amendment rights may be waived by
contract. (See ITT Telecom Products Corp. v. Dooley (1989)214 Cal.App.3d
319.)" (CT 8680)
But Dooley concerns an employee's agreement not to disclose confidential
It is not at all similar to the situation in this case. None of the
GA possessed was confidential. Indeed, Judge Breckenridge stated in his
affirmed on appeal:
"[GA] and his counsel are free to speak or communicate upon any of
recollections or his life as a Scientologist or the contents of any exhibit
in evidence or marked for identification and not specifically ordered
The Court of Appeal which affirmed the decision also refused Scn's effort
have the record on appeal sealed. (CT 6903) All of what GA has to say is
a matter of public record, and in no way confidential to anyone.
This case is different from Dooley because it involves, not confidential
learned on a job, but GA's experiences, now over a 28 year period, with an
which has subjected him, and continues to subject him, to the nightmare that
by the name fair game. This case is profoundly different from Dooley because
involves the unthinkable concept of Scn being able to say whatever it wants
GA, in exercise of its free speech right and in furtherance of its fair game
while he may not exercise his free speech right to defend himself. Pursuant
the SA and the permanent injunction, every Scientologist, every Scn lawyer
every Scn agent can say whatever they want about GA and he may not respond.
does not support such an obnoxious idea.
That "First Amendment [free speech] rights may be waived by
does not mean that all free speech rights may be waived by contract. As with
contracts, a contract waiving the very basic right of free speech must be
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
person never again mention this great nation? Unless of course subpoenaed?
Could California require to settle a case, or for any reason, that a
never again mention this great state? Or rather, would any court consider
such " contracts?" Could a court enforce a contract requiring that
person not discuss the Republicans? The Democrats? The Communists? Politics?
any court entertain a lawsuit to collect on a $50,000 liquidated damages
in such a contract? If free speech rights can be waived by contract, could a
enforce a contract someone signed, perhaps because his attorney told him it
not worth the paper it was printed on, in which he agreed to not speak at
about anything? No. There must be a limit to what speech can be contracted
Here, GA has been sued 5 times, driven into bankruptcy, driven from his job,
PRed and pilloried. The purpose of the First Amendment guarantee of free
is to provide a defense for all citizens from such things, and indeed to
them from happening.
It is perhaps acceptable that Scn pays people, or even contracts with
for their silence. It is, however, completely unacceptable and impermissible
our Courts to enforce such contracts. When Courts cease such enforcement, Scn
will perhaps cease its determination to silence people and its determination
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
enforce the settlement "contract's" silence and non-assistance and
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.
utter refusal to actually deal with my Constitutional defenses, except with
disgraceful, inane and altered Dooley citation, his refusal to look at other
which, if he had acknowledged that evidence, would have required the
of the cult's summary adjudication motion and required the grant of a trial,
his abusive treatment of my lawyer Ford Greene in a series of hearings,
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,
or even trillions of dollars, Constitutional and human rights issues of
importance, an injunction so insane and so violative of basic human rights
logic that people are stunned when they grasp its meaning, and this judge
let Ford speak, cut him off, and threatened him with jail if he continued to
my defenses. The judge's behavior appeared to me to be that of a person
mad by his guilty knowledge that what he was doing, or required to do by the
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
with no valid service of the cult's order to show cause, to punish me for my
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
I received from Scientology lawyer Andrew H. Wilson threatening me with
if I complied with a document production subpoena served on me by Grady Ward
a case before that federal judge. Nowhere in the cult's contempt order that
state judge signed, and which was prepared by the same lawyer Wilson who
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
the threat from the cult, which right could not be signed away lawfully, nor
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
Misprision of Felony, which states:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable
a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make
the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
years, or both.
The crime that Wilson committed with his threat letter, and which I had a
to make known to the federal judge, was a violation of 18 USC §1512,
with a Witness, Victim, or an Informant, which states in pertinent part:
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens, or
persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading
toward another person, with intent to -
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official
(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
integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to
a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been
by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer
judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or
commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation,
or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
Capitalizing on the Marin state court judge's contempt order, fine and
sentence for my advising a federal judge of cult attorney Wilson's threat,
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
27, 1997 details a load of lies Wilson apparently felt he had to tell the
of Appeal to obtain the unlawful dismissal of the appeal.
Just a reading of Dooley and the Marin judge's application, or
really, of that case to the situation with Scientology, is enough to know
there was something very demented or very dirty or both in control in that
Silencing someone about trade secrets that he acquired as an employee is
inapposite to silencing someone about his religious beliefs. Or, again,
using a secular court of law to silence someone about his religious beliefs
entirely different from, and cannot logically be based upon, using a secular
to silence someone about commercial trade secrets.
The Scientology v. Armstrong cases do not involve someone claiming that
secrets are religious beliefs, or that divulging commercial trade secrets is
religious belief. They are cases involving an organization that claims to be
religion, and claims most indignantly to not be a commercial enterprise,
to silence someone about his religious beliefs by law that applies to
The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, which
involves the free expression of religious beliefs, but the Constitution does
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,
lost the secrecy of its "religious trade secrets," since how could
possibly be a free exercise of religion where the "secrets" cannot
Likewise, when Scientology chose to call itself a "religion,"
it necessarily gave up any right it otherwise might have had to silence a
by contract about his experiences in the organization, since, by
choice to be a "religion," the person's experiences became "
experiences." The person's beliefs concerning those "religious
are necessarily "religious beliefs," if he so believes. His
of those "religious beliefs" involving his "religious
becomes the free exercise of religion, which is guaranteed by the U.S.
and cannot lawfully be contracted away. The rational limitations on the free
of religion involve public safety or, conceivably, national security, neither
of which concerns are present, at least openly, in any of the Armstrong
If it really is possible to use secular U.S. courts to enforce contracts
compel or prohibit the expression of religious beliefs, it would end up with
hunting down people and jailing them for going to church, or not going to
or praying, or not praying. Any church could require that its members sign a
that they come to church every Sunday. They don't show up, the church sues
and gets an injunction. They miss another Sunday service, the church gets an
re contempt, and gets the court to issue warrants for their arrest. And they
the parishioners hunted down by the Sheriffs and jailed. Some parishioner
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 "
and includes $50,000 liquidated damages penalties in the contracts. One day,
young parishioner gets the idea of studying Islam. He gets heard saying,
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
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
Now we've got secular courts nailing Christians $50,000 every time they say
Savior's name, and hunting them down and jailing them if they won't shut up.
Because they are "religions," the Christian or Islamic
can, like Scientology, tell any lie they want and make the most obscene of
promises, such as raising IQ a point per hour of prayer, to lure marks or
into their clutches and into their contracts. Like Scientology, these
can threaten and fair game their parishioners, or anyone else, into signing
rights away. They could, like Scientology, require, with a $50,000 liquidated
damages penalty, that the contractees not assist people who are adverse to
church's or mosque's interests.
What is the difference between a Christian, or Islamic, or Buddhist, or
or Jewish religious organization using the secular courts to jail a person
saying "Jesus," or "Mohammed," or "Buddha," or
or "Moses," or expressing his religious beliefs regarding any of
religions, and Scientology using the secular courts to jail a person for
"Xenu?" If they are all religions, there is no difference, and
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
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
enterprise does not change the fact that the cult must also live by its own
that it is a religion. As they prove every day, in the U.S. it is perfectly
to be both religion and crime syndicate.
Therefore, a secular court cannot say that my statements that Hubbard was
pathological liar, that David Miscavige is a criminal, and that all
are liars, are not my religious beliefs. The fact that I can prove these
by the scientific method, by law, facts and logic does not render them non-
beliefs. They are "religious beliefs" because the criminal
cult chooses to call itself a "religion." And they are "
beliefs" because they're my beliefs about these matters. I get to say
are my religious beliefs, although logically I cannot claim, and am not
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
the Scientologists, by their own standards, religious bigots. That's also
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
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
something other that Scientology, and about something other than what the
cultists believe my beliefs are about. See, e.g., item #49 on the cult's list
of alleged "breaches" of their "contract."
I write in that 1999 usenet post: "I'll say $1,500,000. That's my
The cult claims on its "breaches" list that what I wrote is a
by Armstrong in which he guesses how much Dennis Erlich received in his
with the Church." I was doing no such thing. The cultists want $50,000
me for their own paranoid hallucination. And lest they now get another wrong
"my figure" has increased immeasurably since I made this post in
but it's still *my* figure, not Dennis Erlich's.
The Armstrong "contract's" "non-assistance" and "
condition, each violation of which also results in a $50,000 liquidated
penalty, is just as lawfully judicially unenforceable as the "silencing
religious expression" condition. The "non-assistance" and
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
assist or advise anyone, including individuals, partnerships, associations,
or governmental agencies contemplating any claim or engaged in litigation or
in or contemplating any activity adverse to the interests of any entity or
of persons" that comprise every Scientology org, every corporation,
group, every affiliated company or entity, and all of their directors,
employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns.
To actually be able to perform this obligation, I would have to know what
all the interests of all of these thousands of Scientology or Scientology-
corporations, organizations, groups, companies and persons. I would also have
to know every activity that every individual, partnership, association,
or governmental agency, which I might be considering assisting or advising,
involved in or was contemplating. Then I would have to evaluate whether any
those activities that any of those individuals, partnerships, associations,
or governmental agencies, which I might be considering assisting or advising,
were involved in or contemplating were, adverse to the interests of any of
thousands of Scientology or Scientology-affiliated corporations,
groups, companies and persons. Scientology, of course, has never even
me with a list of all of their thousands of Scientology or Scientology-
corporations, organizations, groups, companies and persons, let alone a
of what all of the interests of those thousands of Scientology or
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
is a "high crime," or "suppressive act," that makes the
of that high crime a "suppressive person," and "fair
Also, simply not "knowing the technology," and not "knowing it
is correct" are suppressive acts for which a person can be fair gamed.
e.g., L. Ron Hubbard, Introduction to Scientology Ethics, © 1998 L. Ron
Library, p. 298.
See, also HCOPL 7 February 1965 "Keeping Scientology Working," pp
It is clear that anyone who doesn't have the correct technology, or
know the technology, or doesn't know it is correct, is engaged in, no matter
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,
the correct technology or knows it's correct, every wog® is at all times
in activities adverse to the interests of all those thousands of Scientology
Scientology-affiliated corporations, organizations, groups, companies and
Therefore, by the Scientology cult's contract, I am prohibited at all times
in all circumstances from assisting or advising any wog®. And if I do
or advise any wog® at any time or in any circumstance, according to the
I must pay $50,000 and be jailed. This is, of course, insane. But then
is insane, its practitioners are insane, and they have demonstrated already
their interpretation of the "contract" and their efforts to enforce
it are insane. This statement, also, of course, is, in addition to being
and scientifically and legally provable, my religious belief.
The persons whom Scientology seeks to prevent me from assisting or
comprise a class of citizens called "suppressive persons," or
The partnerships, associations, corporations, or governmental agencies that
seeks to prevent me from assisting or advising comprise what the cult calls
groups," which are operated and staffed by SPs. The persons comprising
suppressive persons and suppressive groups form a class, just as Scientology
in its "contract" that the persons comprising the "contract
"beneficiaries" form a class. Indeed, the cult's own "
identify suppressive persons as a "class." Since Scientology claims
to be a religion, and the invention and identification of the class called
is by "religious" criteria, "religious technology” and
"scripture," SPs or suppressive persons form a "religious
The Scientology cultists have had me classified as a "suppressive
for over twenty-one years.
"Suppressive person" or "SP" is an epithet and a hate
the closest equivalent to which, outside of Scientology, in the modern
vernacular, is probably "kike." SPs are to Scientologists as kikes
to nazis. Scientology and Scientologists are at present very active in
into the wog world® their kikefication of persons whose interests are
to their own. "Wog®" is a racist term, equivalent to "
but meaning in Scientology, not a person of a dark-skinned race, but a
regardless of coloration, of the human race, or homo sapiens. Scientology
that Scientologists comprise a new, superior, indeed master race, they call
novis," or "homo scientologicus," and that wogs® are an
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
they are necessarily all wogs®. SPs, by Scientologists, are hated and
both by race and by religion, and the term is analogous to "nigger
Scientology's non-assistance and non-advice condition in its Armstrong
is equivalent to a condition that prohibits a person from assisting or
a racial class, such as "Blacks," "Asians," "
" or "Native Americans," and prohibits a person from assisting
or advising a religious class, such as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews
Hindus. Such a contractual condition is not in the U.S. lawfully judicially
Assessing someone $50,000 in damages for assisting a person of one of those
or religious classes is insane. But, of course, and as is obvious,
practitioners are insane. It is in fact my religious experience that inside
I was also insane, because inside Scientology insanity is required and
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
classes is a more insane circumstance than what existed in Iraq under the
If such "adversarial" "contracts" are lawful, then
contracts with the same function would also be lawful. Thus, it would be
for white racists to all contract with each other to not assist or advise
people. A white racist bus driver, by contract, could not assist a black
by giving him a ride in his bus, otherwise the white racist would be hauled
to court, fined and jailed. Anti-Semites could contract with each other to
any assistance being given to Jews. An anti-Semitic police officer would be
by his "contract" to not assist any Jew who might be the victim of
crime. Otherwise the police officer would himself be fined and jailed.
These scenarios are, of course, impossible, because such "
are unlawful, being in violation of the civil rights of racially or
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
adverse to the Scientologists' interests, i.e., "SPs," is just as
of civil rights. Scientology's "contract" no more lawfully trumps
invalidates civil rights statutes than other racists' or other religious
"friendly contracts" would lawfully trump and invalidate civil
If I had a job as a bus driver, I could no more lawfully be compelled to
assist an SP passenger than the white racist bus driver could lawfully be
to not assist the black passenger. If I became a cop, I could no more
be compelled to not assist an SP victim than the anti-Semitic officer could
be compelled to not assist a victim who was Jewish. Since my job and my
is assisting SPs against the Scientology cult's hatred and attacks, I can no
be lawfully prohibited by contract from performing the functions of that job
calling than a doctor can be lawfully prohibited by contract from treating
or a Minister can be lawfully prohibited from preaching to SPs, or a Prime
can be lawfully prohibited from governing SPs.
Because what Scientology is trying to do to me by contract is unlawful,
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,
the "contract" contracts every org, corporation, group, affiliated
and all of their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers
assigns to "benefit" from these unlawful actions, and because these
actions are all aimed at unlawfully depriving me of my rights and privileges
to me by the U.S. Constitution and laws, all of the cult's and the cultists'
from the moment they got my own lawyer to pressure and con me into the
of their "contract," comprise a massive and continuing violation of
U.S. Federal criminal civil rights statutes, specifically 18 USC §241
In fact, quite recently a U.S. Government Official, whose position
that he deal with the Scientology problem, and with whom I had a lengthy
acknowledged to me that what the cult is doing with me is a violation of
civil rights statutes.
18 USC §241, "Conspiracy Against Rights," in pertinent
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in
free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the
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,
18 USC §242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law," in
pertinent part, states:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be
under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;
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
any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by
Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include
not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful
but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if
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
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
that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex,
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
injury, if any.
Since there is no doubt that the Scientologists and their agents and
conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate me in the free
and enjoyment of my rights and privilege secured to me by the Constitution
laws of the United States, and conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, and
me because of my having so exercised the same, there is no doubt that they
committing a continuing crime and that these persons constitute a criminal
Since that is true, I have a right and duty to make known that conspiracy,
and criminal enterprise to persons in civil authority in the U.S., which I
done and continue to do. The rights or privileges secured to me by the U.S.
or laws, that the Scientology cultists and their agents have conspired to
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
due process, self defense, privacy, the litigant’s privilege, attorney-
privilege, doctor-patient privilege, clergyman-penitent privilege, and
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
constitutes another crime, specifically 18 USC §1512 (see, supra). And,
course, the cult's efforts to silence me, and punish me for communicating
its efforts to silence me, and punish me for communicating about its
crimes and criminal enterprise, constitute another, and a continuing crime,
What the Marin judge did to unlawfully strip me of my basic human rights
done under the camouflage color of ITT v. Dooley, as discussed above. Since
the judge did was a violation of 18 USC §242, I cannot lawfully be
about that crime. And again, of course, the cult's and the Marin court's
to silence me about, and punish me for communicating about that crime
another obstruction crime pursuant to 18 USC §1512. What the Marin judge
did, after unlawfully stripping me of my basic rights with his unlawful
to unlawfully jail and fine me, under the inky color of his own unlawful
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
then extortion would be legal. Since I am not an extortionist, and since I
at the time of the 1986 "settlement" that the cult was involved in
activity, I was not selling my silence about that activity. I agreed to
my claims against the cult, I was paid in settlement of those claims, and I
from the public controversy to give the cultists the opportunity they said
desired and needed in order to gracefully cease their criminal activities.
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
I am not extorting anything, and that I am not myself involved in their
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
(see, supra) by making known, and not concealing, my knowledge of the cult's
of all the felonies that I have identified herein, all of which are
by U.S. Courts.
It stands to reason that in addition to my duty to inform the civil
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
me by court order. Otherwise, the courts could silence people about the
own crimes, and the public would never know. That is essentially what the
judge did when he prohibited me from mentioning his unlawful rulings. The
civil officials responsible for ending the Scientology's continuing crimes
me have so far not acted to stop the cult's criminal persecution. It is
that by refusing to act to stop Scientology's clear violations of U.S. civil
statutes those responsible officials are abetting the cult in its criminal
and are even in violation themselves of 18 USC §242. But it is
in my opinion, that I have a right to communicate to the media and public
those officials' inaction.
Since the Armstrong "contract" contains conditions with unlawful
purposes, specifically the violation of 18 USC §241, these conditions
not only lawfully judicially unenforceable, but I would be party to that
if I participated in the achieving of the unlawful purpose of these
Contractual conditions with an unlawful purpose are necessarily not lawfully
enforceable, or, e.g., murder contracts would be lawful. If a contracted
failed to perform his obligation pursuant to the contract the U.S. Courts
jail him for not murdering his victim.
In the Armstrong "contract" scenario, a close parallel would be
murder-victim contract, wherein a person contracts with a murderer to be his
Perhaps the victim was pressured into signing the "contract" by his
lawyer, who was himself being threatened by the murderer. And perhaps the
lawyer assured the victim that the "contract" was not worth the
it was printed on. But after the "contract" is signed, and perhaps
assuring the "contractual" victim that he would be there for him,
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 "
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
all across the planet to murder him. Otherwise, the murderer would be himself
in violation of his murder-victim "contract," and the victim could
the "contract" rescinded by the murderer's failure to perform his
obligation, i.e., by failing to murder the victim. Similarly, since the
"contract" has a clear unlawful purpose, the cult would not be
their contractual obligation if they didn't continue to seek to unlawfully
me of my basic human rights. I could have the "contract" rescinded
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 "
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
been presented that whole agreement and if he had been asked to order its
he would have dug his feet in because that is one .... I'll say one of the
ambiguous, one-sided agreements I have ever read. And I would not have
the enforcement of hardly any of the terms if I had been asked to, even on
threat that, okay the case is not settled. I know we like to settle cases.
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.
Thus, in order to perform their obligations pursuant to their "
the cultists had to prostrate the court system into making its injunction,
series of contempt orders and arrest warrants, that were not fair or in the
interest. The Marin Judge, Gary W. Thomas, was extremely willing to be
by the cultists so they could achieve their unlawful ends.
The Scientology cultists and their lawyers must believe that their
efforts to enforce their "contract" and the injunction that they
the Marin judge to sign, are in part "necessary" to demonstrate
they have a good faith belief that their "contract," their
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
to inform the whole world, that what they are doing is unlawful. Since it is
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
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
"contract," injunction, contempt orders and warrants are lawful.
When they are finally forced to acknowledge that the conditions of their
that they have paid so much and worked so hard to enforce are unlawful, and
their enforcement efforts and "successes" are unlawful, the fact
I have worked so hard for so long to advise them of their unlawfulness, and
fact that they have continued their ridiculous, but terribly cruel pretense
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
the unlawful conditions of their "contract," or their unlawful
contempt orders and warrants, while using these unlawful and unlawfully
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
guilty knowledge of the criminality of what they're doing. See, e.g., the
flaunting of their unlawful orders on their Gerry Armstrong hate pages:
They must take these documents down because they're unlawful, and they know
unlawful, but the cultists can't take them down because they know that it
be an acknowledgement that these documents are indeed unlawful. They have a
present time problem. They can, of course, assassinate me, which is very
because, as what they're already doing with me demonstrates, they're a
enterprise, and insane.
According to their own "technology" (oops, "scriptures),
the Scientology cultists are doing with me and with all their unlawful
and efforts, which they know beyond any doubt are unlawful, is insane, and
cultists are insane. Hubbard defines "insanity" for them as "
must reach--can't reach, must withdraw--can't withdraw." L. Ron Hubbard,
Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary, © 1983, p. 210. The
must withdraw from trying to unlawfully destroy my basic human rights, and
withdraw their unlawful orders that unlawfully judicially destroy my basic
right. But they can't withdraw from their unlawful efforts and they can't
their unlawful documents, because, as I noted, it would show that they were
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
precise. It's the exact point at which he begins to stop something. At that
he is insane. At first he is insane on that one subject; then he can get
idée fixe and become insane on another subject, thus getting
insanity. But there is no doubt of his insanity on that one subject,
that he is trying to stop.
And there is no doubt that Scientology, all its organizations,
groups, affiliated companies and entities, and all of their directors,
employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns are trying to stop me in
free exercise and enjoyment of my rights and privilege secured to me by the
and laws of the United States. Scientology, and all those entities and
are, by the definitions contained in their own "technology,"
Hubbard, was, of course, also insane, and he missed the boat with his
of the point where a person goes insane. Whether a person will go insane at
point he begins to stop something, if he goes insane at all, depends on what
is trying to stop. People who try to stop committing crimes, as, e.g. the
who are committing continuous crimes against me, will not go insane by
their commission of those crimes. In fact, the Scientologists might actually
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
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
Scientology cult's or the Scientology cultists' free exercise and enjoyment
their rights and privileges. Indeed, I urge all of them to freely exercise
enjoy those rights and privileges, and not be deprived of those rights and
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
beliefs, and my creative thoughts, the cultists have in truth driven
In complete support of what I've written here on the Scientologists'
state, Hubbard further defines "insanity" as "the overt or
but always complex and continuous determination to harm or destroy."
28 November 1970, "Psychosis." Hubbard also writes in this HCOB:
characteristics classified as those of the "suppressive person" are
in fact those of the insane person." All of Scientology's orgs,
groups and affiliated entities, and all of their directors, officers,
volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns, are determined, and acting
overtly and covertly, to destroy my basic human rights, to destroy my
to destroy my relationships, to destroy my life, and to destroy me. In their
determination and their insane actions, of course, they are destroying their
basic human rights, their own reputations, their own relationships, their own
lives and themselves. They are all truly insane. And they are all, according
their own dictates, suppressive persons and suppressive groups.
As I said, I am not seeking to harm or destroy the basic human rights, or
or relationships, or lives or persons of any of those suppressive and insane
groups, or any of those suppressive and insane Scientologists, or any of
suppressive and insane agents, lawyers and assigns. In fact, I am doing what
can to end their suppressive and insane determinations and actions so that
become sane and can lead decent, unharmful, undestructive lives. It would be
indeed if I did not speak out but succumbed to the Scientologists'
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
sane by getting them to end their efforts to destroy my basic human rights,
rescind the unlawful conditions of the Armstrong "contract," to
their suppressive lawsuits against me, and to revoke their judgment,
contempt orders and arrest warrants. I understand that it is almost
for this to happen, because all the Scientology organizations, corporations,
and affiliated entities, and all of their directors, officers, employees,
agents, lawyers and assigns have been driven, by their determination to harm
destroy me, almost hopelessly insane. But, still, as Goethe said, in all
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
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
my basic human rights, my relationships and my life, and not only are they
desperate to withdraw and utterly unable to withdraw from all that
and insanity, but they all are also trying to stop everyone in the world who
be acting in concert with me from the free exercise and enjoyment of those
rights and privileges, they all are determined, and trying madly, covertly
overtly, to harm and destroy the basic human rights, the relationships and
lives of all those people, and they certainly all must be going berserk
to withdraw, and being powerless to withdraw, from all that colossal
The letter of June 3, 2002 from cult attorney Elliot Abelson to University
of Alberta Professor Stephen Kent threatening Dr. Kent with prosecution
to the "acting in concert" "condition," which the cult
into the injunction that they got the Marin judge to sign, is an excellent
of the level of insanity attainable by the Scientologists, and obviously by
their lawyers, with the application of their standard overt, covert, complex
continuous determination to harm or destroy.
Dr. Kent recently executed a declaration to correct the lies that Abelson
in his threat letter.
In his letter, Mr. Abelson avers that I made trips to Europe where Gerry
and I appeared together at various public gatherings, all with the same anti-
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
gathering anywhere else in the world. I have never appeared at any public
in Europe or anywhere else in the world with the same anti-religious agenda,
any anti-religious agenda whatsoever.
Mr. Abelson avers that in public statements or appearances I have made I
acted in concert with Mr. Armstrong, that an injunction issued by the Marin
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
as Mr. Abelson is interpreting it, is lawful, and I believe that Mr.
threat is unlawful. I have continued to make public statements and
in my professional work as I did before receiving Mr. Abelson’s
letter, and I will continue to make such public statements and appearances.
As Dr. Kent states, he had never been in Europe with me, never appeared
me at any public gathering in Europe or anywhere else, and neither he nor I
ever appeared at any gathering at any time with an "anti-religious
But the Scientologists and their agents and lawyers rarely let the truth get
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
to get a job, I would necessarily be assisting my employer, who must
be a wog®. My employer, by making it possible for me to assist a
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
me a computer.
The insane cult would certainly leap at the chance to sue someone for
me a job. Since the wog® employer would be acting in concert with me, he
likewise be in violation of the insane cult's insane contract if he assisted
either by giving them jobs, or by providing some kind of product or service
assisted them. So the cult would have to act, pursuant to its "
to shut down the company and operation of anyone who might consider employing
Since potentially any company might employ me to assist some wog®
the cult necessarily must stop all companies and all production everywhere,
for Scientology companies and affiliated companies, of course. This scenario
clearly insane, but Scientology and its practitioners, agents and lawyers, as
has been shown, and as they covertly, overtly and continuously prove every
are insane, and as they continue to desperately try to stop the unstoppable,
to harm the unharmful, and try to withdraw from what they can't withdraw
they can but become ever more insane, and their efforts to enforce their
"contract" conditions and their unlawful court orders ever more
The Armstrong cases are extremely useful to anyone who seeks an
of Scientology's actual intentions, or, already having such an understanding,
seeks facts and documentation with which to oppose the cult. My cases
beyond any rational argument, that Scientology and virtually every
are suppressors and destroyers of basic human rights. The very best document,
to demonstrate that the human right Scientology and Scientologists seek is
"human right" to destroy human rights, is the "contract"
claim to have with me. This "contract" *binds* and *compels* each
every one of them to suppress and destroy human rights.
The Scientologists got what they wanted. They made it go right. They
they're OT by doing what they intended, by making their postulates become
They got, by whatever corrupt means, a California judge to sign the document
put before him. And now they're stuck with it. What the cult has done to
my basic human rights is possibly the stupidest thing they've ever done. It
just as stupid as killing Lisa McPherson, because it is open, on-going and
They can claim that Lisa's wrongful death was an anomaly, that it was old
and that they don't do that any more, or that some rogue Scientologists went
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,
five lawsuits, billions of dollars, a mountain of court-stamped documents,
their well-preserved gloating in their black PR packs and on their Internet
sites, they have none of the defenses or excuses they use for Lisa's killing.
Because the Scientologists have *contracted* themselves to suppress and
human rights, I think that most people who oppose the cult haven't grasped
they would be so incredibly stupid. So people have not yet made good use of
But I think that people will sooner or later grasp the amazing gift this
is to the cause, and every Scientologist will have to confront his or her
in and support for the suppression and destruction of human rights that is
"contract's" valuable final product.
Not only are all of those people bound by this "contract" to
and destroy human rights, but the contract demonstrates beyond rational
that the cult is, in clear contradiction of their PR and legal claims, a
entity, and that "separate identities" are a farce. Scientology
Heber Jentzsch binds, by *contract*, every org, corporation, franchise,
front group, and affiliated entity, which would include all WISE companies,
all of their directors, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and
to participate in the same criminal conspiracy. What incredible overweening
One of the amazing things in this situation is that none of those
entities or persons can extricate themselves as "beneficiaries" of
human rights-destroying, criminal conspiracy contract without my approval.
"contract" states: "This Agreement may be amended only by a
instrument executed by Plaintiff and CSI." Any entity or person wishing
stop trying to destroy my human rights must get approval from the Miscavige
and the authorized regime representative must come to me to get my approval
writing before those entities or persons may to get out of the contract.
all Scientology entities and persons bound by the "contract" are
by their being "beneficiaries" of this "contract" and
with their participation in this criminal conspiracy, because no one has
me to amend the "contract" to remove anyone as a
Although I knew, and in fact was told by my attorney, at the time of the
in 1986, that I could not sign away the basic human rights that the
cultists claim that the "contract" strips from me, I did not then
just how unlawful, indeed criminal, the "contract" is. At first I
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
any conceivable right to judicial enforcement by black PRing me publicly
following the "settlement." I believed, and still believe, that I
not have released them by contract to commit future torts, and that I had a
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
any right the cultists might have had to enforce the silence and non-
conditions, these conditions were lawfully judicially unenforceable. These
strip from me, as I've discussed here, basic human rights, including First
religious freedom, which cannot lawfully be stripped from someone by
The cult's efforts to enforce their unlawful "contract" have
of course, threatening, debilitating and ruinous to me, but I have weathered
threats and insanity, and now I'm grateful that such a diabolical "
exists, and I'm grateful that the cultists have gone to such outrageous
to enforce it. As gruesome and as insanity-making as the Marin judge's
orders are that enforce the "contract" I have to be grateful for
too. What has happened with me has instilled in me the goal of having the
end forever its policy and practice of binding its members and wogs® with
all such "contracts" that unlawfully and cruelly strip them of
basic human rights.
I believe that the Armstrong "contract" and the Armstrong cases
the potential of achieving that goal. No one else should have to go through
this insane cult has put me through in their criminal conspiracy to destroy
human rights. And we wogs® will only experience an acceptable level of
from Scientology's threats and predations when all of us, Scientologists and
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,
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
litigious criminal cult, can do a great deal of good, have a lot of fun, and
a big career leap with this case.
In case there's any question as to whether or not I'm anti-American, I am
on America's and Americans' side in this war. The Scientologists are
anti-American. By my refusal to obey the Marin court's orders, and by my
to be silenced by Scientology's threats and criminal conspiracy, I proclaim
to be a place where people's basic human rights cannot lawfully be destroyed.
Scientology and Scientologists are postulating that America is a hateful,
place where the law can be used very easily to strip people of their basic
Scientology wants an America where people are imprisoned for expressing
beliefs that the Scientologists don't like. I say that America is a country
anyone can express his religious beliefs without fear of persecution.
wants to make America a place where good people may not help citizens that
Scientologists force to wear patches saying "SP." I say America is
nation where anyone is free to help his neighbors, or anyone who needs help,
of their race or creed or the patches on their clothes.