Answer in $cientology v. Armstrong, Marin SC CV 021632
Gandalf
news:BDLA9.27024$1O2.3780@sccrnsc04...
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:58:46 +0100, Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>
> > Armstrong denies that in consideration for a settlement
> > payment of $800,000 he made the covenant quoted above from paragraph
> > 7D of the mutual release. Armstrong never agreed to any such
> > "covenant" because it is illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
> > impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
> > anti-religion, diabolical and insane. Armstrong signed the mutual
> > release containing said illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
> > impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
> > anti-religion, diabolical and insane "covenant"
>
>
> If you signed the agreement and took the money then the court will hold
> you to it, no matter how much you now disagree with it.
Your legal background, idiot? You cannot sign illegal agreements, period.
For example, you cannot buy a slave for $10,000, even if the slave signed
the agreement willingly.
This is no comment about the merits of Gerry's claims, only about the
complete absence of quality of yours.
Gandalf
Gerry Armstrong
<Gun_...@alt.religion.scientology> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:58:46 +0100, Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>
>> Armstrong denies that in consideration for a settlement
>> payment of $800,000 he made the covenant quoted above from paragraph
>> 7D of the mutual release. Armstrong never agreed to any such
>> "covenant" because it is illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
>> impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
>> anti-religion, diabolical and insane. Armstrong signed the mutual
>> release containing said illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
>> impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
>> anti-religion, diabolical and insane "covenant"
>
>
> If you signed the agreement and took the money then the court will hold
>you to it, no matter how much you now disagree with it.
Absolutely untrue.
All of the illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid, impossible to
perform, anti-public policy, anti-American, anti-religion, diabolical
and insane conditions are 100% severable.
It has nothing to do with my disagreeing with it. It has to do with
the substance of the "contract."
Will, e.g.,courts enforce a murder contract? Any murder contract
could meet *your* conditions -- the murderer signed the agreement and
took the money.
Don't pretend to be stupid. Why not discuss the substance, rather than
make stupid pronouncements?
Would a severable clause that required that a person not discuss his
Christian experiences be legally enforceable?
Would a severable clause that required that a person not assist black
people be legally enforceable?
Could a Satanic cult after fair gaming a person require as a condition
of settlement that he never again say the word God, or Christ, or
never again pray to God? Yes. Would it be legally enforceable? No.
So give us a little thought Keith, not just pretended stupidity.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Keith
>Your legal background, idiot? You cannot sign illegal agreements, period.
>For example, you cannot buy a slave for $10,000, even if the slave signed
>the agreement willingly.
Prove that the agreement is illegal. Gerry can't do that and he knows it.
He didn't sign any slave contract, just a standard take the money and shut up
agreement. I feel Gerry's pain, $800,000 is so unfair NOT!
Keith
wrote:
>Will, e.g.,courts enforce a murder contract? Any murder contract
>could meet *your* conditions -- the murderer signed the agreement and
>took the money.
Oh your ranting and raving is too much. You agreed to take the money and shut
up about Scientology. You broke the agreement and the only thing you can do
now is whine that it was so wrong for you to sign an agreement and take the
money. Well since it such an immoral contract you signed I'm sure that you
gave Scientology that $800,000 dollars back plus interest.
Put your money where your mouth is Gerry.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
For those who care, unlike Keith here, who is just pretending to be
stupid, I made such an offer, to Mike Rinder personally, on more than
one occasion.
But it is not as simple as Keith pretends. You see, Scientology paid
me, not to be silent, because that was impossible, but to dismiss my
lawsuit against the cult for years of fraud and years of fair game,
which I did. I upheld my side of the "contract," my only obligations
which were legal and legally enforceable.
Therefore, if I gave back the money that the cult paid me to dismiss
my case, my case would go to trial. The cult could not tolerate such a
possibility.
But not only would my case against the cult for all the fraud and fair
game go to trial, but all my witnesses, who had been bound by similar
illegal gag "contracts," would have to be released from those
contracts to be able to testify.
And not only would my case against the cult for all the fraud and fair
game go to trial, and not only would all my witnesses, who had been
bound by similar illegal gag "contracts," have to be released from
those contracts to be able to testify, but my lawyers, who were
prohibited by illegal "contracts" from assisting me or taking
Scientology cases, would have to be released from those contracts.
Since Scientology was unwilling to do these things, their only
recourse is to cancel the illegal, legally unenforceable and severable
conditions of the "mutual release."
Don't pretend to be stupid Keith.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:25:12 GMT, "Gandalf" <BasicQu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Your legal background, idiot? You cannot sign illegal agreements, period.
>>For example, you cannot buy a slave for $10,000, even if the slave signed
>>the agreement willingly.
>
> Prove that the agreement is illegal.
Stop pretending to be so stupid, Keith.
I have presented my arguments. Proof will come when the cult either
cancels the "contract," or it is ruled unlawful in court, or in some
legislature, or in the court of public opinion. I have already had
legal opinions from excellent authorities that such a "contract" is
not legally enforceable in Germany.
> Gerry can't do that and he knows it.
I am doing it. You are part of my ongoing proof.
You show that the best minds Scientology can throw at me can do
nothing to argue the merits but can only pretend to be stupid and
attack with stupidities.
But the event has not happened yet, so is impossible to prove. You act
so stupid.
It's a little like heavier than air flight. It was always possible,
but only proven when the Wright brothers flew. I have made my
arguments. I have not been proven wrong, and cannot be proven wrong,
any more than you could have proven the Wright brothers wrong because
they had not yet proven they were right.
The fact that one very deluded judge ruled that the "contract" is
legal and legally enforceable does not prove it legal any more than my
pronoucement to the contrary does. But I can tell you that my
arguments are far more sound than the BS arguments the judge used to
"support" his ruling.
See what Judge Geernaert said about your cult's "contract:"
[Quote]
"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."
[End Quote]
So, now I have two judges, Geernaert and Breckenridge, who support my
position. Is that "proof" enough for you?
I have on my side logic, law, the Constitution, legal opinions in
another country, arguments, facts, and two California Superior Court
Judges.
And on the other side you have a judge who was doing what? According
to Judge Geernaert, "prostrat[ing] the court
system into making an order which is not fair or in the
public interest." That's what Scientology wants. That's an illegal
purpose. You want Scientology to accomplish that illegal purpose. I
don't.
>He didn't sign any slave contract, just a standard take the money and shut up
>agreement.
Now it's your turn to pony up the proof. Show me any other settlement
agreement by any other church or religion in the United States which
contains similar clauses.
> I feel Gerry's pain, $800,000 is so unfair NOT!
Scientology paid me what was fair at the time to settle my claims
against them which were set for trial. I have neve complained about
the amount they paid me in settlement.
But Scientology did not pay me to be its fair game punching bag
forever.
Scientology likes to have fair game punching bags, because Scientology
is a criminal conspiracy. But such "contracts" are *not* legal.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Keith
wrote:
>Don't pretend to be stupid Keith.
Gerry you are so out there that nothing can reach you. The next time some one
offers you $800,000 just say no. Since you signed the contract and agreed to
it's terms then you are the one that is being stupid. There isn't a lawyer in
the world that would advise you to break your contract, because any person
that doesn't even have a law degree would know that it is enforceable.
If you are so convinced about the merits of your case why won't you appear in
court to prove that it is an illegal and immoral contract? You are no
different then people like this:
> Today, Nov. 12, 2002, I, [delete],*a living,
>breathing, flesh-and-blood, sentient, natural person* appeared before
>Presiding Judge GERALD C.NEUFELD of the Circuit Court of Oregon for
>the County of Josephine in Courtroom #3 in the Josephine County
>Courthouse, Grants Pass, Oregon.
>
> I spoke to Judge GERALD C. NEUFELD from the gallery. I refused
>to cross the bar and thereby confer jurisdiction to the court.
>
> An interesting departure from previous courtroom procedure was
>noted by myself, my wife, and other witnesses who were in
>attendance. Unless we all missed it, Judge NEUFELD NEVER ONCE CALLED
>ME BY NAME. (although the usual procedure of calling out the name was
>used with every other in-custody and out-of-custody defendant at that
>hearing on that date).
>
> How was that accomplished? In my case, Judge NEUFELD addressed the
>court-appointed attorney from the Josephine County, Oregon Public
>Defender's Office,PETER SMITH (who was appointed by Judge ALLAN H.
>COON to represent me), and through him orally elicited my
>common-law-copyrighted trade name/trademark, the Juristic Person
>listed as Defendant.
>
> Attorney Peter Smith advised the court that I did not consent to
>having him represent me,and I would speak for myself. Smith
>acknowedged that he was appointed to represent me by Judge ALLAN H.
>COON, but I did not accept him as my counsel. Attorney SMITH readily
>attested to that fact. SMITH reported to Judge NEUFELD that the
>purpose of the present status hearing on this date was to report on my
>attempts to find other legal representation. I advised the court that
>at no time had I agreed to have Mr SMITH represent me and that I
>wished to read a statement
Henson, Ward and you should pair up and do a "How to Screw Yourself in Court
being Pro Se." book. You could have a joint release with Minton's new book,
"How I Blew Ten Million Dollars Supporting Idiots and Morons."
Keith
wrote:
>I have presented my arguments. Proof will come when the cult either
>cancels the "contract,"
That will never happen.
>or it is ruled unlawful in court,
That will never happen.
> or in some legislature,
Congress will pass the Armstrong Act preventing gag orders in 2040, NOT!
> or in the court of public opinion.
The court of public opinion doesn't make legal rulings.
> I have already had legal opinions from excellent authorities that such a "contract" is
>not legally enforceable in Germany.
You entered into the agreement years ago in California, so it still applies
to *you*.
This is the last rant of yours I will answer, it is like talking to a brick
wall.
Zinj
says...
As much or as little as I may like Gerry, and I do like him in some
respects, and less in others, I think a very scientological question
might be appropriate in your case.
After all.... what's it to you Keith?
Who's paying you?
Zinj
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> Henson, Ward and you should pair up and do a "How to Screw Yourself in Court
> being Pro Se." book. You could have a joint release with Minton's new book,
> "How I Blew Ten Million Dollars Supporting Idiots and Morons."
Ooooh.. you're *Oh So Clever* keith :)
The temptation is of course to assume you've begun to take your 30 pieces
of silver (metaphor to your betrayal of the wog world in case you missed
it) in courses!!!!
Will we soon see your published wins?
"I was a lowly mallguard in Portland before I met Scientology. But thanks
to L. Ron Hubbard, I have grown to being a respected support person for
stalkers of old women and other impressionable victims. Yes, thanks to my
evolution from a pitiful general suppuration on the ass of humanity to
becomming a hired stooge for an UFO Cult, I have realized my full
potential, and little old women and other easilly bullied victims
throughout the land take me seriously!
Such lowlifes in matters constitutional as Keith Henson or Grady Ward may
still sneer at me, but, thanks to my payment in doctrine, I have learned
that they are doomed dialectically to destruction, and I will see every
otherwise mean spirited thrust I make against them, their families or
friends as pushing towards the final victory of the Cleared Planet, where
I will finally gain my just rewards as a colaborator worthy of a place
emptying bedpans for the true heroes of this saga... the Billion Year
True men and women of the Sea Org.
All thanks to Ron!"
Zinj
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:20:31 +0100, Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org>
>wrote:
>
>>I have presented my arguments. Proof will come when the cult either
>>cancels the "contract,"
>
> That will never happen.
Well, that's the challenge isn't it? Scientology wants the right to
fair game people by contract. And I fight for Scientology's victims.
Scientology wants to use the law to harass. And I say that's illegal.
It may never happen that Scientology wakes up and gets decent.
It may never happen that there is one decent Scientologist in the
world who stands up and opposes this most egregious of wilful
violations of their "creed."
But even if these things never happen, I am grateful that I answered
the call, that I am still standing, and that I am still opposing this
evil.
What your cult is doing with me and the way it is using the U.S. Court
system to suppress and enslave people in violation of your "creed" is
observed by the whole world.
Every country can know that this slavery is what Scientology intends
for its citizens.
Every nation can know that your "creed" is a sham, your pretense of
humanitarianism is a fraud, your aims are utter lies.
Every person on earth can know, just by observing what your cult is
doing with me, that none of you can be trusted, that Scientology is
evil, that its goal is slavery, and that every step taken by every
nation to oppose and curtail its activities is justified.
>
>>or it is ruled unlawful in court,
>
>That will never happen.
Again, that remains to be seen. The U.S. legal system is just as much
under observation for what it is doing with my case as is Scientology.
Since the U.S. Government is promoting Scientology, it is also
promoting Scientology's suppression and slavery by contract as
demonstrated in my case. The U.S. has so far felt no criticism from
other countries for what the cult is doing to me, but what if people
in these other countries wake up?
If in the U.S. a person can be jailed for even mentioning a
"religion," how can the U.S. claim the high ground in criticising
other countries' religious persecution of their citizens?
No, Scientology's religious persecution is potentially very
embararassing to the U.S. And it should be. The U.S.'s support for
Scientology when, as my case demonstrates, Scientology seeks to
silence and enslave people *on religious grounds*, is shameful.
The Marin Superior Court's support for Scientology's "religious"
persecution, and the Court's "prostrat[ing] the court
system into making an order which is not fair or in the
public interest," is also shameful.
So I can't submit to your very stupid postulate that the Court will
never rule the "contract's" unlawful conditions are unlawful.
>
>> or in some legislature,
>
>Congress will pass the Armstrong Act preventing gag orders in 2040, NOT!
Again, I am not ready to submit to your stupid postulate, nor to your
cult's suppression.
>
>> or in the court of public opinion.
>
> The court of public opinion doesn't make legal rulings.
Oh, yes, they do.
>
>
>> I have already had legal opinions from excellent authorities that such a "contract" is
>>not legally enforceable in Germany.
>
> You entered into the agreement years ago in California, so it still applies
>to *you*.
Of course it applies to *me.* Don't be stupid. It's *all* about me.
>
> This is the last rant of yours I will answer, it is like talking to a brick
>wall.
Good. Touchdown.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:57:07 +0100, Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Don't pretend to be stupid Keith.
>
> Gerry you are so out there that nothing can reach you. The next time some one
>offers you $800,000 just say no. Since you signed the contract and agreed to
>it's terms then you are the one that is being stupid.
If, however, it is ruled that the contract's conditions that the
Scientology cult is attempting to enforce are unenforceable, which
they are, then surely every Scientologist has been stupid for opting
to willfully violate their creed, and be shown to be hypocrites, for
nothing.
Worse than nothing, because their efforts to enforce this illegal
"contract" are themselves impermissible violations of my civil rights.
The beneficiaries of this illegal "contract" in fact form a criminal
conspiracy to destroy my civil rights.
>There isn't a lawyer in
>the world that would advise you to break your contract, because any person
>that doesn't even have a law degree would know that it is enforceable.
Not true. Your assertion is a lie. In fact there has been no attorney,
other than those working for the criminal Scientology cult, who has
stated that the conditions I believe are legally unenforceable are in
fact legally enforceable.
> If you are so convinced about the merits of your case why won't you appear in
>court to prove that it is an illegal and immoral contract? You are no
>different then people like this:
<snip unrelated irrelevant BS>
>
> Henson, Ward and you should pair up and do a "How to Screw Yourself in Court
>being Pro Se." book. You could have a joint release with Minton's new book,
>"How I Blew Ten Million Dollars Supporting Idiots and Morons."
Henson, Ward and I do in fact share a common history in the
Scientology cult's war on wogs (R) and its use of the law to harass.
When Scientology's "contract" with me is ruled legally unenforceable,
which the cult lawyers know it is, it may very well impact Keith's
situation. Because I was, after all, Keith's only designated witness.
But far more importantly, do you think that every post I make to
a.r.s. in response to your pretended stupidities costs the cult
$50,000 in damages?
Oops, you're not going to respond any more.
Well, anyone can answer though.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Pts 2
This is excellent documentation. Thanks for sharing it. Your continued
and just zealousness to maintain basic free speech principles under the
relentless and dark attacks from the cult, is nothing less than
inspirational.
So regardless of what that thilly Keith W. spews and blurts, you still
get a huge "VWD!" :-)
Best,
Tom
<><><><><><><><><><><>
www.WhyAreTheyDead.net
Keith
wrote:
>I know when I'm effective on ARS when
>"some" critics dead agent me!
>
>Keith
Obviously you endorse and embrace the practice of dead agenting along with
your pal Robert W. Clark. So what exactly is your beef with Scientology? Do
you want them to lower their rates so you can afford the training?
Any way back to the topic on hand. What do you think of Gerry Armstrong
taking $800,000 and signing a gag agreement and then breaking it? I don't
think that is fair since he agreed to it and has now broken his agreement.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
Keith omits these facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
No wonder he arrives at his cult's conclusion.
And no wonder he blew from this discussion a couple of hours ago.
By his own tech he has crimes.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Keith
>As much or as little as I may like Gerry, and I do like him in some
>respects, and less in others, I think a very scientological question
>might be appropriate in your case.
>
>After all.... what's it to you Keith?
I just find it strange that a person agrees to a gag order, takes $800,000
and cries about it when the people that gave him the money enforce the
contract that he flagrantly violated.
>
>Who's paying you?
Ha Ha. Zinj is still mad about that IRC chat log that Richardson showed him
while he was incarcerated. Let me assure you Zinj, if I was paid anything I
would have given that to Scientology on the house.
I'm not a zealot anti-scientology crusader, neither have I worked for or been
associated with Scientology in any way. I stop by ARS and read some posts once
in a while and respond to them like many people do.
By the way, I like some of the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and I eat black
beans and rice on occasion.
Keith
wrote:
>Keith omits these facts:
>
>1.
>
>2.
>
>3.
>
>4.
>
>5.
>
>6.
>
>7.
>
>8.
>
>9.
>
>10.
Yea, the fact that there are no facts except what you dream up in your mind to
violate a gag order that you agreed to for $800,000. Why is the contract so
immoral and illegal today, but when the cash was sitting in front of you, you
couldn't wait to sign that gag agreement?
>
>No wonder he arrives at his cult's conclusion.
I'm not the only one outside of Scientology that thinks you're full of it.
My cult, the Catholic Church, doesn't care about your gag agreement, but they
sure have been having them signed and the money paid out over the last few
years.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 06:24:59 -0800, Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>As much or as little as I may like Gerry, and I do like him in some
>>respects, and less in others, I think a very scientological question
>>might be appropriate in your case.
>>
>>After all.... what's it to you Keith?
>
> I just find it strange that a person agrees to a gag order, takes $800,000
>and cries about it when the people that gave him the money enforce the
>contract that he flagrantly violated.
Well yes, but you omit the salient fact that the clauses that this
person violates are illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
anti-religion, diabolical and insane.
>and cries about it when the people that gave him the money enforce the
>contract that he flagrantly violated.
>
>>
>>Who's paying you?
>
> Ha Ha. Zinj is still mad about that IRC chat log that Richardson showed him
>while he was incarcerated. Let me assure you Zinj, if I was paid anything I
>would have given that to Scientology on the house.
> I'm not a zealot anti-scientology crusader, neither have I worked for or been
>associated with Scientology in any way. I stop by ARS and read some posts once
>in a while and respond to them like many people do.
> By the way, I like some of the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and I eat black
>beans and rice on occasion.
>
>
>
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Keith
wrote:
>Well yes, but you omit the salient fact that the clauses that this
>person violates are illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
>impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
>anti-religion, diabolical and insane.
Well what did you sign it for then?
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:34:21 +0100, Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Keith omits these facts:
>>
>>1.
>>
>>2.
>>
>>3.
>>
>>4.
>>
>>5.
>>
>>6.
>>
>>7.
>>
>>8.
>>
>>9.
>>
>>10.
You're such a hopeless snipper.
Come on, leave these intact so that people can see what you're talking
about.
Oh what am *I* talking about? You Scientology agents snip just so your
wog (R) victims *cannot* see what talking about.
Okay, well it's not important. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying it.
>
>Yea, the fact that there are no facts except what you dream up in your mind to
>violate a gag order that you agreed to for $800,000.
There you go lying again.
There are plenty of facts.
Wow, look at the facts here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.html
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/appeal/283cal.rptr.917.html
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/appeal/aob-a075027.html
Now relate the facts detailed here to the averments here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/armstrong-answer-cv021632.html
Bet you're completely incapable of doing this, Keith.
> Why is the contract so
>immoral and illegal today, but when the cash was sitting in front of you, you
>couldn't wait to sign that gag agreement?
Now you're lying yet again. Read the facts, not your scientologically
prevaricated postulates:
[Quote]
At the beginning of December, 1986 an agreement was reached
between Flynn and Scn to settle the cases in which he was involved
as counsel or party. GA was then working for Flynn in his Boston
office, was aware that settlement talks were occurring, and had an
agreement with Flynn on a monetary amount to settle his cross-
complaint, then set for trial in March, 1987. GA was flown to Los
Angeles, as were several other clients with claims against the
organization, to participate in a global settlement. Only after his
arrival in LA was he shown a copy of the SA and other documents
which he was expected to sign. (CT 6911,2; 6125,6; 5900,1)
Upon reading the SA, GA was shocked and heartsick. He told
Flynn that the condition of strict confidentiality and silence with
respect to his experiences with Scn, since they involved over
seventeen years of his life, was impossible. GA told Flynn that the
liquidated damages provision was outrageous; that pursuant to the
settlement agreement he would have to pay $50,000.00 if he told a
doctor or psychologist about his experiences from those years, or
if he put on a resume what positions he had held during his Scn
years. He told Flynn that the requirements of non-amenability to
service of process and non-cooperation with persons or
organizations adverse to the organization were obstructive of
justice. He told Flynn that agreeing to leave Scn's appeal of the
Armstrong I decision and not respond to any subsequent appeals was
unfair to the courts and all the people who had been helped by the
decision. He told Flynn that an affidavit the organization was
demanding that he sign along with the SA was false. GA told Flynn
that he was being asked to betray everything and everyone he had
fought for against Scn injustice. (CT 6911-2; 6126,7; 5901)
In answer to GA's objections Flynn said that the silence and
liquidated damages clauses, and anything which called for
obstruction of justice were "not worth the paper they're printed
on." Flynn told GA this a number of times and in a number of ways;
"You can't contract away your Constitutional rights; "the
conditions are unenforceable." Flynn said that he had advised Scn
attorneys that those conditions in the SA were not worth the paper
they were printed on, but that they, nevertheless, insisted on
their inclusion in the SA and would not agree to any changes. Flynn
said that Scn's attorneys had promised that the affidavit, which
all the settling litigants were signing, would only be used by Scn
if GA began attacking it after the settlement; and if GA did not
attack Scn the affidavit "would never see the light of day." Flynn
pointed out to GA the clauses concerning his release of all claims
against Scn to date and its release of all claims against GA to
date and said that they were the essential elements of the
settlement and were what Scn was paying for. (CT 6912,3; 6127;
5901; SS 116; CT 8509)
Flynn told GA that everyone was sick of the litigation and
wanted to get on with their lives. Flynn said that he was sick of
the litigation, the threats to him and his family and wanted out.
He said that as a part of the settlement he and all co-counsels had
agreed to not become involved in organization-related litigation in
the future. He expressed a deep concern that the courts in this
country cannot deal with Scn and its lawyers and their contemptuous
abuse of the justice system. He told GA that if he didn't sign the
documents all he had to look forward to was more years of
harassment and misery. Another client in the room with Flynn and GA
during this discussion yelled at GA, accusing him of killing the
settlement for everyone, and saying that everyone else had signed
or would sign, and everyone else wanted the settlement. Flynn said
that Scn would only settle with everyone together; otherwise there
would be no settlement. (SS 1C, 1D, 1E, CT 8420,1; CT 6913; 6127,8;
5902) Flynn said that he had to get out of the fight, that he had
done enough, that he had paid his dues, that Scientology had ruined
his marriage, his wife's health and his life. (CT 5902)
Flynn told GA that a major reason for the settlement's global
form was to give Scn the opportunity to change its combative
attitude and behavior by removing the threat he and his clients
represented to it. Flynn said that Scn's willingness to pay
substantial sums of money, after its agents and attorneys had sworn
for years to pay his clients "not one thin dime" was evidence of a
philosophic shift within the organization. GA told Flynn that the
SA evidenced the unchanged philosophy of fair game, and that if Scn
did not use the opportunity to transform its antisocial nature and
actions toward its members, critics and society he would, a few
years hence, because of his knowledge of Scn fraud and fair game,
be again embroiled in its litigation and targeted for extralegal
attacks. (SS 98, CT 8487; CT 6913,4; 6128; 5902)
GA had been positioned as a deal-breaker, with all the other
settling parties depending on his signing in order to have the fair
game cease. He reasoned that if he signed, his co-litigants, some
of whom he knew to be in financial trouble, would be happy, the
stress they felt would be reduced and they could get on with their
lives. Flynn and the other lawyers would be happy and the threat to
them and their families would be removed. Scn would have the
opportunity they said they desired to clean up their act and start
anew. GA would have the opportunity to get on with his life and the
financial wherewithal to do so. He was also not unhappy to at that
time not have to testify in all the litigation nor to respond to
the media's frequent questions. He knew that if Scn continued its
fair game practices toward him he would be left to defend himself;
so, armed with Flynn's advice that the SA conditions he found so
offensive were not worth the paper they were printed on, and the
knowledge that Scn's attorneys were also aware of that legal
opinion, GA put on a happy face and the following day went through
a videotaped signing, which he saw as a charade. (CT 6914,5;
6129,30; 5902)
[End Quote]
As for me not being able to wait to sign that gag agreement, it was
actually all the other people to whose heads the criminal Scientology
cultits were holding their guns who could not wait for me to sign. I
signed for them.
[Quote]
There is a Triable Issue as to Duress
In his January 27, 1995 order on Scn's first summary
adjudication motion of certain causes of action of its complaint,
Judge Thomas stated, regarding GA's defense of having signed Scn's
SA because of duress, that GA's own declaration shows that he did
not execute the agreement under duress in that it shows he
carefully weighed his options. Judge Thomas also stated that GA
relied on the conduct of attorney Flynn, a third party, to
establish duress, yet provided no evidence showing that plaintiff
had reason to know of the duress. (CT 4236-9)
In his opposition to Scn's second summary adjudication motion
of its complaint GA provided evidence of Flynn's being fair game
and a target of many Scn attacks from 1979 until the settlement.
(SS 1B, CT 8418-20) In that Scn was the source of the attacks which
included some 15 lawsuits, bar complaints and framing with a check
forgery, it is obvious that Scn knew of at least that aspect of the
duress on Flynn. Scn also knew of all its own acts of fair game
directed at GA up to that time, and at all the other settling
parties. It goes without saying that the purpose of fair game in
its many forms is to apply duress in its many forms to its
designated targets. GA filed as part of his evidence declarations
by several individuals who had knowledge of fair game. (Hana
Whitfield, CT 7780-7887; see, e.g., 7788-91, 7808-27; Dennis
Erlich, CT 7888-99 at 7891; Margery Wakefield, CT 7900-41 at 7903;
Keith Scott, CT 7942-52 at 7945; Malcolm Nothling, CT 7953-9 at
7955, 7958; Jonathon Atack, CT 7960-8038, at 7962-4, 7977-80; Nancy
McLean, CT 8939-49 at 40,1; Lawrence Wollersheim, CT 8052-216 at
8053-59, 8074-212)
That Flynn, GA and the other settling individuals were targets
of fair game is also shown in the "settlement agreement" between
Flynn and his clients, wherein is stated:
"We the undersigned, agree and acknowledge that many
of the cases/clients involved in this settlement...have
been subjected to intense, and prolonged harassment by
the Church of Scientology throughout the litigation...
that [Flynn] or his firm's members have been required to
defend approximately 17 lawsuits and/or civil/criminal
contempt actions instituted by the Church of Scientology
against him, his associates and clients, that he and his
family have been subjected to intense and prolonged
harassment..." (CT 5486,7)
The idea that duress applied by a third party to
a person to get him to sign a document cannot be ascribed to the party
seeking the person's signature is not supported by common sense. If an
agent of a corporation holds a gun to the head of an attorney's
wife, and the attorney tells his client he must sign the
corporation's document or the attorney's wife will be killed,
although the corporate agent doesn't know what the attorney says to
the client, the agent and his corporation are still the source of
and responsible for the duress on the attorney's client. In this
case, the threat of Scn continuing fair game to Flynn, his wife,
family, law firm and clients was the gun held to all their heads.
That Scn was holding its fair game gun to everyone's head was the
communication Flynn relayed to GA to get him to sign Scn's
document.
The nature of the SA itself is also an inference of duress
since what attorney, but one under tremendous duress, would have
his client sign such a document, knowing intimately the history of
fair game by the organization who concocted it. It is clear that
Flynn had, before presenting Scn's SA to GA, already agreed to sign
a contract to not represent or defend GA if GA was attacked in the
future. Such a contract is illegal. What attorney, one as competent
as Flynn, would allow his client to be so exposed and defenseless
to future attacks, except an attorney under duress, or one
thoroughly corrupted. There is too much evidence of duress to
believe that Flynn was just corrupt.
The duress at the time of the settlement, contrary to how it
might be viewed at first glance, is actually demonstrated by Scn's
continuing to fair game GA afterward. Tricking and lying to a
designated target are parts of the basic fair game doctrine. CT
6934; SS 1A, CT 8412) Scn tricked GA into signing its document by
lying about ceasing its attacks. This was acceptable Scn tactics
because GA is designated an SP and hence fair game.
Duress is also evidenced by Flynn's communications to GA
throughout this litigation. Flynn has continually told him that he
would like to help GA but that he is afraid to. Flynn signed a SA
with Scn as well, and has refused to come forward throughout this
litigation, despite telling GA that he "would be there for [him]"
if he had any trouble with Scn after the settlement. (GA
Declaration, 7/20/94 CT 2298) GA filed a declaration executed April
7, 1995 stating what Flynn would testify to if he were released by
Scn from its contract with him. (CT 7678-83) Contracts which limit
an attorney's ability to practice or limit his clients are illegal.
In his order of October 6, Judge Thomas stated again that GA
had not shown that Scn "was aware of Flynn's purported duress of
defendant." (CT 8679) That is not the issue; the issue is Scn's
duress of Flynn, GA and everyone else involved. What Flynn stated
to GA may be hearsay, but what Scn did over its years of attacks on
Flynn and GA, and what it would continue to do if GA didn't sign is
the source of the duress.
Judge Thomas stated that "careful weighing of options" is
completely inconsistent with an absence "of free exercise of [GA's]
will power" or his having "no reasonable alternative to
succumbing." That cannot be true. A person with a gun at his head
may weigh his options just as carefully as a person with free
exercise of his will. His options are, however, radically
different. In this case, GA's options were either sign Scn's
document or have Scn continue to threaten and attack his attorneys,
their families, the 20 other people who wanted out from the threats
and attacks, and himself. Also included in GA's weighing of his
options was Scn's promise through Flynn that it would cease all its
fair game activities against everyone. Flynn's statements to GA
that the SA's prohibitions were not worth the paper they were
printed on and unenforceable, although perhaps ultimately true, are
also reflective of duress, and were also part of GA's weighing of
his options. Some people carefully weigh things; some people don't.
It is the nature of the options being weighed, carefully or not,
which is the true indicator of duress. Judge Thomas did not examine
GA's options. These are options which must be examined by the trier
of fact.
[End Quote]
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/appeal/aob-a075027.html
>
>>
>>No wonder he arrives at his cult's conclusion.
>
>
> I'm not the only one outside of Scientology that thinks you're full of it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
Well give me the contact info for these clearly deluded folks and I'll
give *them* the facts.
Here. I'll leave the customary space for you to provide their names:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>My cult, the Catholic Church, doesn't care about your gag agreement, but they
>sure have been having them signed and the money paid out over the last few
>years.
Oh, will you post one at least. They prevent Catholics from mentioning
the name of God, or from relating their religious experiences in the
Catholic Church?
I'll just bet.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. What a liar you are Keith Wyatt. And a liar for
Scientology. What an unjust cause!
Way to go Scientology. Every day in every way you prove me right! But
come on, prove me wrong. Do something decent for a change..
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
1. To have fair game end for everyone.
2. To have fair game end against my lawyers.
3. To have fair game end against all the other settling claimants.
4. To give Scientology the opportunity it said it wanted to end fair
game.
5. To do what I was guided to do so that we could all arive at this
point where Scientology's criminal aims are in focus, and where
Scientologists can view their persecution of one common, average
individual against their "creed," against what they've been told by
their cult masters, and against what they've been telling themselves,
and so that every Scientologist can see what his or her fees buy. They
buy suppression.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Garry
So, Gerry, rather than spinning and misconstruing the facts as you are
prone to do to play the role of narcissistic martyr - why did you
accept, cash and spend the $800,000 if you had no intentions of
honoring the settlement?
Stop toying around with all the far-out hypotheses and just answer the
question.
Gerry Armstrong
Your question makes no sense. I honored the settlement completely.
>
>
>Stop toying around with all the far-out hypotheses and just answer the
>question.
If anyone wants to know about me, about the Scientology organization's
persecution of me for almost 21 years, and about its diabolical
efforts to silence me in violation of its own "creed," in violation of
the US Constitution, in violation of the California Constitution, in
violation of civil and human rights laws around the world, and in
violation of the Law of God, please read everything there is to read
on this website:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Keith
wrote:
>Say hi to Edwin and Mr. Ramsay for us, bunny. Tell Dan Bryenton we
>miss his sharp, logical mind on a.r.s. :-)
There you go again.
Gerry Armstrong
<gorill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:19:21 GMT, Keith <nos...@nosssppam.no.sd>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:37:11 -0600, James Wood <gorill...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I know when I'm effective on ARS when
>>>"some" critics dead agent me!
>>>
>>>Keith
>>
>> Obviously you endorse and embrace the practice of dead agenting along with
>>your pal Robert W. Clark. So what exactly is your beef with Scientology? Do
>>you want them to lower their rates so you can afford the training?
>>
>
>Naw, I'm content to let people like you sell their souls...
>
>> Any way back to the topic on hand. What do you think of Gerry Armstrong
>>taking $800,000 and signing a gag agreement and then breaking it? I don't
>>think that is fair since he agreed to it and has now broken his agreement.
>
>Say hi to Edwin and Mr. Ramsay for us, bunny. Tell Dan Bryenton we
>miss his sharp, logical mind on a.r.s. :-)
Dan Bryenton? I remember Dan Bryenton. He assaulted me on October 16,
1999. He had his hands all over me. He was ordered to assault me by
OSA official Paulette. Was that Paulette Layton?
Hey Dan, why not come clean about your assault on me on October 16,
1999 right in front of the Toronto org. You remember it took that huge
Toronto Police Officer to pull you off me.
Hey Dan, you blew from a.r.s. If you got off that overt against me,
that assault on me, you could come back and communicate.
Come on Dan, just cop to your assault and you can rejoin the group.
I'll sign your formula.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Name one
>
Capt. Fredric L. Rice
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:58:46 +0100, Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>> Armstrong denies that in consideration for a settlement
>> payment of $800,000 he made the covenant quoted above from paragraph
>> 7D of the mutual release. Armstrong never agreed to any such
>> "covenant" because it is illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
>> impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
>> anti-religion, diabolical and insane. Armstrong signed the mutual
>> release containing said illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
>> impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
>> anti-religion, diabolical and insane "covenant"
> If you signed the agreement and took the money then the court will hold
>you to it, no matter how much you now disagree with it.
The Scientology crime syndicate broke the agreement which then
immediately nullified Mr. Armstrongs need to maintain his end.
Your crime crime syndicate persisted in employing its policy
you call "Fair Game" in direct defiance of the agreement, ergo
Mr. Armstrong is free to speak about his knowledge of your
criminal enterprise's crimes.
Your crime bosses claimed that every time Mr. Armstrong says
anything truthful about your crime syndicate, it costs your
syndicate $50,000. My suggestion would be to stop trying to
violate his rights.
--
George W. Bush threatens to kill us all -- for oil
http://www.gwbush.com/ http://www.bushwatch.net/
(And don't forget: SERE training sucks.)
Garry
snip.
> >Say hi to Edwin and Mr. Ramsay for us, bunny. Tell Dan Bryenton we
> >miss his sharp, logical mind on a.r.s. :-)
>
> Dan Bryenton? I remember Dan Bryenton. He assaulted me on October 16,
> 1999. He had his hands all over me. He was ordered to assault me by
> OSA official Paulette. Was that Paulette Layton?
>
> Hey Dan, why not come clean about your assault on me on October 16,
> 1999 right in front of the Toronto org. You remember it took that huge
> Toronto Police Officer to pull you off me.
Yeah, right. Where's your proof, Kook? We're to believe you just
because your royal Flatulence says so?
Boudewijn van Ingen
Is the full text of that "mutual release" (which apparently wasn't
very "mutual" at all) available on the web too?
Looks to me like there are certainly some things in the short snippet
from the "mutual release" that you quote that are in direct violation
of not only the US Constitution, but International Law and possibly
even Universal Human Rights.
The rest of the world is certainly not surprised to find that the US
considers itself to be "above" International Law or Universal Human
Rights.
And individual States, courts and judges within the US have a long
tradition of behaving unconstitutionally. So no surprise there too.
But still, I was a bit surprised that you didn't include the
classification "unconstitutional" in the list of qualifications for
said "release" (which wasn't any "release"at all, come to think of
it...).
[snipped your long text, I gather it is on the web]
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Garry
> Xenu allowed Gun_Bunny <Gun_...@alt.religion.scientology> to write:
>
> >On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:58:46 +0100, Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>
> >> Armstrong denies that in consideration for a settlement
> >> payment of $800,000 he made the covenant quoted above from paragraph
> >> 7D of the mutual release. Armstrong never agreed to any such
> >> "covenant" because it is illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
> >> impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
> >> anti-religion, diabolical and insane. Armstrong signed the mutual
> >> release containing said illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
> >> impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
> >> anti-religion, diabolical and insane "covenant"
>
> > If you signed the agreement and took the money then the court will hold
> >you to it, no matter how much you now disagree with it.
>
> The Scientology crime syndicate broke the agreement which then
> immediately nullified Mr. Armstrongs need to maintain his end.
> Your crime crime syndicate persisted in employing its policy
> you call "Fair Game" in direct defiance of the agreement, ergo
> Mr. Armstrong is free to speak about his knowledge of your
> criminal enterprise's crimes.
It always amazes me how far you will go to lick Gerry's ass, Fred.
Say, Gerry...how about telling your friends here the rendevous' you
and Ford Greene would take to Golden Era and do surveillance on the
camp (long before Scientology cited you in violation of the
settlement).
Garry
> Gerry:
> This is excellent documentation. Thanks for sharing it. Your continued
> and just zealousness to maintain basic free speech principles under the
> relentless and dark attacks from the cult, is nothing less than
> inspirational.
>
> So regardless of what that thilly Keith W. spews and blurts, you still
> get a huge "VWD!" :-)
Ass-smoocher.
Gerry Armstrong
>FR...@SkepticTank.ORG (Capt. Fredric L. Rice) wrote in message news:<ut8rd6h...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>> Xenu allowed Gun_Bunny <Gun_...@alt.religion.scientology> to write:
>>
>> >On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:58:46 +0100, Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> >> Armstrong denies that in consideration for a settlement
>> >> payment of $800,000 he made the covenant quoted above from paragraph
>> >> 7D of the mutual release. Armstrong never agreed to any such
>> >> "covenant" because it is illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
>> >> impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
>> >> anti-religion, diabolical and insane. Armstrong signed the mutual
>> >> release containing said illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
>> >> impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
>> >> anti-religion, diabolical and insane "covenant"
>>
>> > If you signed the agreement and took the money then the court will hold
>> >you to it, no matter how much you now disagree with it.
>>
>> The Scientology crime syndicate broke the agreement which then
>> immediately nullified Mr. Armstrongs need to maintain his end.
>> Your crime crime syndicate persisted in employing its policy
>> you call "Fair Game" in direct defiance of the agreement, ergo
>> Mr. Armstrong is free to speak about his knowledge of your
>> criminal enterprise's crimes.
That is true. Scientology, and all the "beneficiaries" of its "mutual
release" had to remain silent about me, to have any reasonable
expectation that I would remain silent about my experiences with them.
When they attacked me after the "settlement" they waived any right to
enforce their "mutual release." It is impossible to contract away the
right to respond to future torts, since, obviously, one cannot know
what the future torts will be. Since Scientology attacked me after the
"settlement" all my responses to their attacks, i.e., all of my
communications about my experiences with the "beneficiaries," are
privileged.
But, because of what the cult has done after the settlement, it is now
possible to show to the whole world their actual intention, which is
the suppression and the destruction of basic human rights.
Even if Scientology, and all the thousands of "beneficiaries," had not
acted, by attacking me after the "settlement," to waive their right to
enforce the "mutual release," the document is judicially unenforceable
because it impermissibly strips me of my Constitutional rights to,
inter alia, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly, freedom from slavery and due process.
What the cultists are doing with their enforcement of this "mutual
release" demonstrates to the world that everyone connected to the cult
is a hypocrite, that their "creed" is a fraud, that their "aims" are
nothing like they say they are, but are immoral, antisocial and
deadly.
The U.S. is very foolish to support and promote Scientology's
persecution of its fair game victims. The U.S. is the only country in
the civilized world where a person can be jailed just for saying the
name of the leader of a "religion," just for mentioning one word about
the person's "religious experiences." How can the U.S. be trusted in
any of its human rights statements or initiatives when it promotes
this most egregious religious persecution of its own citizens? How can
the U.S.'s criticisms of any other country for that country's actions
taken against "religions" or "religious minorities" be accepted or
even believed when the U.S. promotes the wholesale destruction of its
citizens' freedoms of religion by what is essentially the U.S. State
religion?
What does Scientology's intelligence apparatus have on the leaders of
the U.S. that would cause these leaders to permit their own country to
be viewed as the worst religious persecutor in the civilized world?
That Scientology's fair game machinery has brought the U.S. to support
this obscene religious persecution of its citizens is precisely why
the U.S., for the freedom and hope of everyone, must reverse course,
must just say no to Scientology.
>
>It always amazes me how far you will go to lick Gerry's ass, Fred.
To Fred Rice and everyone else who has supported me and supported my
opposition to Scientology's "religious" persecution, knowing you will
be subjected to the insane attacks of Scientology's goon squad, thank
you from the bottom of my heart.
>
>Say, Gerry...how about telling your friends here the rendevous' you
>and Ford Greene would take to Golden Era and do surveillance on the
>camp (long before Scientology cited you in violation of the
>settlement).
Garry Scarff is lying. Lies are all the criminal Scientology cult has.
At no time before the Scientology cult claimed I violated the "mutual
release" did I ever do any surveillance on the Gilman Hotsprings
compound.
At no time after the Scientology cult claimed I violated the "mutual
release" did I ever do any surveillance on the Gilman Hotsprings
compound.
At no time have I ever rendezvoused with or been with Ford Greene to
do any surveillance on the Gilman Hotsprings compound, or been with
Ford anywhere near the compound for any purpose whatsoever.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
The "mutual release" is here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-1986.html
The Answer is here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/armstrong-answer-cv021632.html
And I did include "unconstitutional" in my classification of the
"mutual release" and the Thomas Injunction in my Answer.
E.g. [Quote]
Armstrong signed the mutual release containing said illegal,
unconstitutional, greatly stupid, impossible to perform, anti-public
policy, anti-American, anti-religion, diabolical and insane "covenant"
because of threats from CSI, Scientology, Miscavige and the
beneficiaries to the finances, health, businesses, families,
reputations, persons and lives of himself, his lawyers, his friends,
and the non-Scientologist parties involved in several separate cases
then pending against CSI, Scientology, Miscavige or the beneficiaries;
because of fraudulent representations by CSI, Scientology, Miscavige,
the beneficiaries, and Armstrong's lawyer; because of the compromise
of Armstrong's lawyer by CSI, Scientology, Miscavige and the
beneficiaries; and because Armstrong was guided by God to sign CSI's,
Scientology's, Miscavige's and the beneficiaries' illegal,
unconstitutional, greatly stupid, impossible to perform, anti-public
policy, anti-American, anti-religion, diabolical and insane mutual
release so that it could be shown to all the world to be exactly what
it is, to wit, illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid, impossible
to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American, anti-religion,
diabolical, insane and clearly unenforceable.
[End Quote]
By my rough count, in the Answer in describing the terms of the
"mutual release" or the injunction that Scientology is attempting in
its latest Complaint to punish me for violating, the word
"unconstitutional" appears 62 times.
Scientology's Complaint against Bob Minton, the Lisa McPherson YTrust
and me, that my Answer answers is here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/complaint-cv021632.html
Bob's and the LMT's Answer is here:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/minton-answer-cv021632.html
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Boudewijn van Ingen
Oops. So much for my reading skills. ;-)
I must admit that I skimmed through it rather than spell it out at
times, because of the many repetitions that are obviously necessary
for legal reasons. I hadn't noticed the subtle changes between the
bits that I thought were repetetive... ;-)
But I'm glad we agree! ;-)
>Scientology's Complaint against Bob Minton, the Lisa McPherson YTrust
>and me, that my Answer answers is here:
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/complaint-cv021632.html
>
>Bob's and the LMT's Answer is here:
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/minton-answer-cv021632.html
Thanks for the URLs, they need to be spread...
>© Gerry Armstrong
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
roger gonnet
"Gun_Bunny" <Gun_...@alt.religion.scientology> a écrit dans le message
de news: BDLA9.27024$1O2.3780@sccrnsc04...
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:58:46 +0100, Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>
> > Armstrong denies that in consideration for a settlement
> > payment of $800,000 he made the covenant quoted above from paragraph
> > 7D of the mutual release. Armstrong never agreed to any such
> > impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
> > release containing said illegal, unconstitutional, greatly stupid,
> > impossible to perform, anti-public policy, anti-American,
> > anti-religion, diabolical and insane "covenant"
>
>
hold
> you to it, no matter how much you now disagree with it.
In France, no illegal (illicit, contrary to existing and applicable
laws) agreement can be signed off and keep any value. One can't take
basic liberties from people, whatebver agreement they sign off, unlee
being a judge in a court, after the person has been ruled guilty from
something, and the ruling accepted as definite.
r